THE SEVERAL HEADS OF ERROR WHICH WERE ALLEGED
AGAINST PELAGIUS AT THE SYNOD IN PALESTINE, WITH HIS ANSWERS TO EACH CHARGE,
ARE MINUTELY DISCUSSED. AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT, ALTHOUGH PELAGIUS WAS ACQUITTED
BY THE SYNOD, THERE STILL CLAVE TO HIM THE SUSPICION OF HERESY; AND THAT
THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED BY THE SYNOD WAS SO CONTRIVED, THAT THE HERESY
ITSELF WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WAS UNHESITATINGLY CONDEMNED.

CHAP. 1.--INTRODUCTION.

AFTER there came into my hands, holy father
Aurelius, the ecclesiastical proceedings, by which fourteen bishops of
the province of Palestine pronounced Pelagius a catholic, my hesitation,
in which I was previously reluctant to make any lengthy or confident statement
about the defence which he had made, came to an end. This defence, indeed,
I had already read in a paper which he himself forwarded to me. Forasmuch,
however, as I received no letter therewith from him, I was afraid that
some discrepancy might be detected between my statement and the record
of the ecclesiastical proceedings; and that, should Pelagius perhaps deny
that he had sent me any paper (and it would have been difficult for me
to prove that he had, when there was only one witness), I should rather
seem guilty in the eyes of those who would readily credit his denial, either
of an underhanded falsification, or else (to say the least) of a reckless
credulity. Now, however, when I am to treat of matters which are shown
to have actually transpired, and when, as it appears to me, all doubt is
removed whether he really acted in the way described, your holiness, and
everybody who reads these pages, will no doubt be able to judge, with greater
readiness and certainty, both of his defence and of this my treatment of
it.

CHAP. 2 [I.]--THE FIRST ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION,
AND PELAGIUS' ANSWER.

First of all, then, I offer to the Lord my
God, who is also my defence and guide, unspeakable thanks, because I was
not misled in my views respecting our holy brethren and fellow-bishops
who sat as judges in that case. His answers, indeed, they trot without
reason approved; because they had not to consider how he had in his writings
stated the points which were objected against him, but what he had to say
about them in his reply at the pending examination. A case of unsoundness
in the faith is one thing, one of incautious statement is another thing.
Now sundry objections were urged against Pelagius out of a written complaint,
which our holy brethren and fellow-bishops in Gaul, Heros and Lazarus,
presented, being themselves unable to be present, owing (as we afterwards
learned from credible information) to the severe indisposition of one of
them. The first of these was, that be writes, in a certain book of his,
this: "No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of
the law." After this had been read out, the synod inquired: "Did you, Pelagius,
express yourself thus?" Then in answer he said: "I certainly used the words,
but not in the sense in which they understand them. I did not say that
a man is unable to sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law; but that
he is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning, even as
it is written, 'He hath given them a law for help'" Upon hearing this,
the synod declared: "The words which have been spoken by Pelagius are not
different from the Church." Assuredly they are not different, as he expressed
them in his answer; the statement, however, which was produced from his
book has a different meaning. But this the bishops, who were Greek-speaking
men, and who heard the words through an interpreter, were not concerned
with discussing. All they had to consider at the moment was, what the man
who was under examination said was his meaning,--not in what words his
opinion was alleged to have been expressed in his book.

CHAP. 3.--DISCUSSION OF PELAGIUS' FIRST ANSWER.

Now to say that "a man is by the knowledge
of the law assisted towards not sinning," is a different assertion from
saying that "a man cannot be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge
of the law." We see, for example, that corn-floors may be threshed without
threshing-sledges,--however much these may assist the operation if we have
them; and that boys can find their way to school without the pedagogue,--however
valuable for this may be the office of pedagogues; and that many persons
recover from sickness without physicians,--although the doctor's skill
is clearly of greatest use; and that men sometimes live on other aliments
besides bread,--however valuable the use of bread must needs be allowed
to be; and many other illustrations may occur to the thoughtful reader,
without our prompting. From which examples we are undoubtedly reminded
that there are two sorts of aids. Some are indispensable, and without their
help the desired result could not be attained. Without a ship, for instance,
no man could take a voyage; no man could speak without a voice; without
legs no man could walk; without light nobody could see; and so on in numberless
instances. Amongst them this also may be reckoned, that without God's grace
no man can live rightly. But then, again, there are other helps, which
render us assistance in such a way that we might in some other way effect
the object to which they are ordinarily auxiliary in their absence. Such
are those which I have already mentioned,--the threshing-sledges for threshing
corn, the pedagogue for conducting the child, medical art applied to the
recovery of health, and other like instances. We have therefore to inquire
to which of these two classes belongs the knowledge of the law,--in other
words, to consider in what way it helps us towards the avoidance of sin.
If it be in the sense of indispensable aid without which the end cannot
be attained; not only was Pelagius' answer before the judges true, but
what he wrote in his book was true also. If, however, it be of such a character
that it helps indeed if it is present, but even if it be absent, then the
result is still possible to be attained by some other means,--his answer
to the judges was still true, and not unreasonably did it find favour with
the bishops that "man is assisted not to sin by the knowledge of the law;"
but what he wrote in his book is not true, that "there is no man without
sin except him who has acquired a knowledge of the law,"--a statement which
the judges left undiscussed, as they were ignorant of the Latin language,
and were content with the confession of the man who was pleading his cause
before them, especially as no one was present on the other side who could
oblige the interpreter to expose his meaning by an explanation of the words
of his book, and to show why it was that the brethren were not groundlessly
disturbed. For but very few persons are thoroughly acquainted with the
law. The mass of the members of Christ, who are scattered abroad everywhere,
being ignorant of the very profound and complicated contents of the law,
are commended by the piety of simple faith and unfailing hope in God, and
sincere love. Endowed with such gifts, they trust that by the grace of
God they may be purged from their sins through our Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAP. 4 [II.]--THE SAME CONTINUED.

If Pelagius, as he possibly might, were to
say in reply to this, that that very thing was what he meant by "the knowledge
of the law, without which a man is unable to be free from sins," which
is communicated by the teaching of faith to converts and to babes in Christ,
and in which candidates for baptism are catechetically instructed with
a view to their knowing the creed, certainly this is not what is usually
meant when any one is said to have a knowledge of the law. This phrase
is only applied to such persons as are skilled in the law. But if he persists
in describing the knowledge of the law by the words in question, which,
however few in number, are great in weight, and are used to designate all
who are faithfully baptized according to the prescribed rule of the Churches;
and if he maintains that it was of this that he said, "No one is without
sin, but the man who has acquired the knowledge of the law,"--a knowledge
which must needs be conveyed to believers before they attain to the actual
remission of sins,--even in such case there would crowd around him a countless
multitude, not indeed of angry disputants, but of crying baptized infants,
who would exclaim,--not, to be sure, in words, but in the very truthfulness
of innocence,--"What is it, O what is it that you have written: 'He only
can be without sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law?' See here are
we, a large flock of lambs, without sin, and yet we have no knowledge of
the law." Now surely they with their silent tongue would compel him to
silence, or, perhaps, even to confess that he was corrected of his great
perverseness; or else (if you will), that he had already for some time
entertained the opinion which he acknowledged before his ecclesiastical
examiners, but that he had failed before to express his opinion in words
of sufficient care,--that his faith, therefore, should be approved, but
this book revised and amended. For, as the Scripture says: "There is that
slippeth in his speech, but not in his heart." Now if he would only admit
this, or were already saying it, who would not most readily forgive those
words which he had committed to writing with too great heedlessness and
neglect, especially on his declining to defend the opinion which the said
words contain, and affirming that to be his proper view which the truth
approves? This we must suppose would have been in the minds of the pious
judges themselves, if they could only have duly understood the contents
of his Latin book, thoroughly interpreted to them, as they understood his
reply to the synod, which was spoken in Greek, and therefore quite intelligible
to them, and adjudged it as not alien from the Church. Let us go on to
consider the other cases.

CHAP. 5 [III.]--THE SECOND ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION;
AND PELAGIUS' ANSWER.

The synod of bishops then proceeded to say:
"Let another section be read." Accordingly there was read the passage in
the same book wherein Pelagius had laid down the position that "all men
are ruled by their own will." On this being read, Pelagius said in answer:
"This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever
it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under
the direction of a free will." Upon hearing this, the bishops exclaimed:
"Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church." For who indeed
could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God's help is associated
with it? His opinion, therefore, as thus explained in his answer, was,
with good reason, deemed satisfactory by the bishops. And yet, after all,
the statement made in his book, "All men are ruled by their own will,"
ought without doubt to have deeply disturbed the brethren, who had discovered
what these men are accustomed to dispute against the grace of God. For
it is said, "All men are ruled by their own will," as if God rules no man,
and the Scripture says in vain, "Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance;
rule them, and lift them up for ever." They would not, of course, stay,
if they are ruled only by their own will without God, even as sheep which
have no shepherd: which, God forbid for us. For, unquestionably to be led
is something more compulsory than to be ruled. He who is ruled at the same
time does something himself,indeed, when ruled by God, it is with the express
view that he should also act rightly; whereas the man who is led can hardly
be understood to do any thing himself at all. And yet the Saviour's helpful
grace is so much better than our own wills and desires, that the apostle
does not hesitate to say: "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God." And our free will can do nothing better for us than
to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing
this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him of whom it is said
in the psalm, "He is my God, His mercy shall go before me."

CHAP. 6.--PELAGIUS' ANSWER EXAMINED.

Indeed, in this very book which contains these
statements, after laying down the position, "All men are governed by their
own will, and every one is submitted to his own desire," Pelagius goes
on to adduce the testimony of Scripture, from which it is evident enough
that no man ought to trust to himself for direction. For on this very subject
the Wisdom of Solomon declares: "I myself also am a mortal man like unto
all; and the offspring of him that was first made of the earth," --with
other similar words to the conclusion of the paragraph, where we read:
"For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out therefrom:
wherefore I prayed and understanding was given to me; I called, and the
Spirit of Wisdom came into me." Now is it not clearer than light itself,
how that this man, on duly considering the wretchedness of human frailty,
did not dare to commit himself to his own direction, but prayed, and understanding
was given to him, concerning which the apostle says: "But we have the understanding
of the Lord;" and called, and the Spirit of Wisdom entered into him? Now
it is by this Spirit, and not by the strength of their own will, that they
who are God's children are governed and led.

CHAP. 7.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

As for the passage from the psalm, "He loved
cursing, and it shall come upon him; and he willed not blessing, so it
shall be far removed from him," which he quoted in the same book of Chapters,
as if to prove that "all men are ruled by their own will," who can be ignorant
that this is a fault not of nature as God created it, but of human will
which departed from God? The fact indeed is, that even if he had not loved
cursing, and had willed blessing, he would in this very case, too, deny
that his will had received any assistance from God; in his ingratitude
and impiety, moreover, he would submit himself to be ruled by himself,
until he found out by his penalties that, sunk as he was into ruin, without
God to govern him he was utterly unable to direct his own self. In like
manner, from the passage which he quoted in the same book under the same
head, "He hath set fire and water before thee; stretch forth thy hand unto
whether thou wilt; before man are good and evil, life and death, and whichever
he liketh shall be given to him," it is manifest that, if he applies his
hand to fire, and if evil and death please him, his human will effects
all this; but if, on the contrary, he loves goodness and life, not alone
does his will accomplish the happy choice, but it is assisted by divine
grace. The eye indeed is sufficient for itself, for not seeing, that is,
for darkness; but for seeing, it is in its own light not sufficient for
itself unless the assistance of a clear external light is rendered to it.
God forbid, however, that they who are "the called according to His purpose,
whom He also foreknew, and predestinated to be conformed to the likeness
of His Son," should be given up to their own desire to perish. This is
suffered only by "the vessels of wrath," who are perfected for perdition;
in whose very destruction, indeed, God "makes known the riches of His glory
on the vessels of His mercy." Now it is on this account that, after saying,
"He is my God, His mercy shall go before me," he immediately adds, "My
God will show me vengeance: upon my enemies." That therefore happens to
them which is mentioned in Scripture, "God gave them up to the lusts of
their own heart." This, however, does not happen to the predestinated,
who are ruled by the Spirit of God, for not in vain is their cry: "Deliver
me not, O Lord, to the sinner, according to my desire." With regard, indeed,
to the evil lusts which assail them, their prayer has ever assumed some
such shape as this: "Take away from me the concupiscence of the belly;
and let not the desire of lust take hold of me. Upon those whom He governs
as His subjects does God bestow this gift; but not upon those who think
themselves capable of governing themselves, and who, in the stiff-necked
confidence of their own will, disdain to have Him as their ruler.

CHAP, 8.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

This being the case, how must God's children,
who have learned the truth of all this and rejoice at being ruled and led
by the Spirit of God, have been affected when they heard or read that Pelagius
had declared in writing that "all men are governed by their own will, and
that every one is submitted to his own desire?" And yet, when questioned
by the bishops, he fully perceived what an evil impression these words
of his might produce, and told them in answer that "he had made such an
assertion in the interest of free will,"--adding at once, "God is its helper
whenever it chooses good; whilst man is himself in fault when he sins,
as being under the influence of a free will." Although the pious judges
approved of this sentiment also, they were unwilling to consider or examine
how incautiously he had written, or indeed in what sense he had employed
the words found in his book. They thought it was enough that he had made
such a confession concerning free will, as to admit that God helped the
man who chose the good, whereas the man who sinned was himself to blame,
his own will sufficing for him in this direction. According to this, God
rules those whom He assists in their choice of the good. So far, then,
as they rule anything themselves, they rule it rightly, since they themselves
are ruled by Him who is right and good.

CHAP. 9.--THE THIRD ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION;
AND PELAGIUS' ANSWER.

Another statement was read which Pelagius
had placed in his book, to this effect: "In the day of judgment no forbearance
will be shown to the ungodly and the sinners, but they will be consumed
in eternal fires." This induced the brethren to regard the statement as
open to the objection, that it seemed so worded as to imply that all sinners
whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting
even those who hold Christ as their foundation, although "they build thereupon
wood, hay, stubble," concerning whom the apostle writes: "If any man's
work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved,
yet so as by fire." When, however, Pelagius responded that "he had made
his assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning
sinners, 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous
into life eternal,'" it was impossible for Christian judges to be dissatisfied
with a sentence which is written in the Gospel, and was spoken by the Lord;
especially as they knew not what there was in the words taken from Pelagius'
book which could so disturb the brethren, who were accustomed to hear his
discussions and those of his followers. Since also they were absent who
presented the indictment against Pelagius to the holy bishop Eulogius,
there was no one to urge him that he ought to distinguish, by some exception,
between those sinners who are to be saved by fire, and those who are to
be punished with everlasting perdition. If, indeed, the judges had come
to understand by these means the reason why the objection had been made
to his statement, had he then refused to allow the distinction, he would
have been justly open to blame.

CHAP. 10.--PELAGIUS' ANSWER EXAMINED. ON ORIGEN'S
ERROR CONCERNING THE NON-ETERNITY OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DEVIL AND THE
DAMNED.

But what Pelagius added, "Who believes differently
is an Origenist," was approved by the judges, because in very deed the
Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom
the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil
himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged,
and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints
who reign with God in the association of blessedness. This additional sentence,
therefore, the synod pronounced to be "not opposed to the Church,"--not
in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel,
that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as
the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is
a sharer in Origen's abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment
can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal.
Concerning those sinners, however, of whom the apostle declares that "they
shall be saved, yet so as by fire, after their work has been burnt up,"
inasmuch as no objectionable opinion in reference to them was manifestly
charged against Pelagius, the synod determined nothing. Wherefore he who
says that the ungodly and sinner, whom the truth consigns to eternal punishment,
can ever be liberated therefrom, is not unfitly designated by Pelagius
as an" Origenist." But, on the other hand, he who supposes that no sinner
whatever deserves mercy in the judgment of God, may be designated by whatever
name Pelagius is disposed to give to him, only it must at the same time
be quite understood that this error is not received as truth by the Church.
"For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy."

CHAP. II.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

But how this judgment is to be accomplished,
it is not easy to understand from Holy Scripture; for there are many modes
therein of describing that which is to come to pass only in one mode, In
one place the Lord declares that He will "shut the door" against those
whom He does not admit into His kingdom; and that, on their clamorously
demanding admission, "Open unto us, . . . we have eaten and drunk in Thy
presence," and so forth, as the Scripture describes, "He will say unto
them in answer, I know you not, . . . all ye workers of iniquity." In another
passage He reminds us that He will command "all which would not that He
should reign over them to be brought to Him, and be slain in His presence."
In another place, again, He tells us that He will come with His angels
in His majesty; and before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall
separate them one from another; some He will set on His right hand, and
after enumerating their good works, will award to them eternal life; and
others on His left hand, whose barrenness in all good works He will expose,
will He condemn to everlasting fire. In two other passages He deals with
that wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to trade with His money,
and with the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment,--and
He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness.
And in yet another scripture, after admitting the five virgins who were
wise, He shuts the door against the other five foolish ones." Now these
descriptions,--and there are others which at the instant do not occur to
me,--are all intended to represent to us the future judgment, which of
course will be held not over one, or over five, but over multitudes. For
if it were a solitary case only of the man who was cast into outer darkness
for not having on the wedding garment, He would not have gone on at once
to give it a plural turn, by saying: "For many are called, but few are
chosen;" whereas it is plain that, after the one was cast out and condemned,
many still remained behind in the house. However, it would occupy us too
long to discuss all these questions to the full. This brief remark, however,
I may make, without prejudice (as they say in pecuniary affairs) to some
better discussion, that by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout
the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment,
which is inscrutable to us,--with only the variety of deservings preserved
in the rewards and punishments. Touching the particular point, indeed,
which we have before us at present, it is sufficient to remark that, if
Pelagius had actually said that all sinners whatever without exception
would be punished in an eternity of punishment by everlasting fire, then
whosoever had approved of this judgment would, to begin with, have brought
the sentence down on his own head. "For who will boast that he is pure
from sins?" Forasmuch, however, as he did not say all, nor certain, but
made an indefinite statement only,--and afterwards, in explanation, declared
that his meaning was according to the words of the Gospel,--his opinion
was affirmed by the judgment of the bishops to be true; but it does not
even now appear what Pelagius really thinks on the subject, and in consequence
there is no indecency in inquiring further into the decision of the episcopal
judges.

CHAP.12 [IV.]--THE FOURTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION;
AND PELAGIUS' ANSWER.

It was further objected against Pelagius,
as if he had written in his book, that "evil does not enter our thoughts."
In reply, however, to this charge, he said: "We made no such statement.
What we did say was, that the Christian ought to be careful not to have
evil thoughts." Of this, as it became them, the bishops approved. For who
can doubt that evil ought not to be thought of? And, indeed, if what he
said in his book about "evil not being thought" runs in this form, "neither
is evil to be thought of," the ordinary meaning of such words is "that
evil ought not even to be thought of." Now if any person denies this, what
else does he in fact say, than that evil ought to be thought of? And if
this were true, it could not be said in praise of love that "it thinketh
no evil!" But after all, the phrase about "not entering into the thoughts"
of righteous and holy men is not quite a commendable one, for this reason,
that what enters the mind is commonly called a thought, even when assent
to it does not follow. The thought, however, which contracts blame, and
is justly forbidden, is never unaccompanied with assent. Possibly those
men had an incorrect copy of Pelagius' writings, who thought it proper
to object to him that he had used the words: "Evil does not enter into
our thoughts;" that is, that whatever is evil never enters into the thoughts
of righteous and holy men. Which is, of course, a very absurd statement.
For whenever we censure evil things, we cannot enunciate them in words,
unless they have been thought. But, as we said before, that is termed a
culpable thought of evil which carries with it assent.

After the judges had accorded their approbation
to this answer of Pelagius, another passage which he had written in his
book was read aloud: "The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old
Testament." Upon this, Pelagius remarked in vindication: "This can be proved
by the Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament,
deny this. I, however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures
when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: 'The saints
shall receive the kingdom of the Most. High.'" After they had heard this
answer, the synod said: "Neither is this opposed to the Church's faith."

CHAP. 14.--EXAMINATION OF THIS POINT. THE
PHRASE "OLD TESTAMENT" USED IN TWO SENSES. THE HEIR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THERE WERE HEIRS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Was it therefore without reason that our brethren
were moved by his words to include this charge among the others against
him? Certainly not. The fact is, that the phrase Old Testament is constantly
employed in two different ways,--in one, following the authority of the
Holy Scriptures; in the other, following the most common custom of speech.
For the Apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians: "Tell me, ye
that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written
that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free
woman. . . . Which things are an allegory: for these are the two testaments;
the one which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this is Mount Sinai
in Arabia, and is conjoined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in
bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusalem which is above is free,
and is the mother of us all." Now, inasmuch as the Old Testament belongs
to bondage, whence it is written, "Cast out the bond-woman and her son,
for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac," but
the kingdom of heaven to liberty; what has the kingdom of heaven to do
with the Old Testament? Since, however, as I have already remarked, we
are accustomed, in our ordinary use of words, to designate all those Scriptures
of the law and the prophets which were given previous to the Lord's incarnation,
and are embraced together by canonical authority, under the name and title
of the Old Testament, what man who is ever so moderately informed in ecclesiastical
lore can be ignorant that the kingdom of heaven could be quite as well
promised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to
which the kingdom of heaven belongs? At all events, in those ancient Scriptures
it is most distinctly written: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will consummate a new testament with the house of Israel and with
the house of Jacob; not according to the testament that I made with their
fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the
land of Egypt." This was done on Mount Sinai. But then there had not yet
risen the prophet Daniel to say: "The saints shall receive the kingdom
of the Most High." For by these words he foretold the merit not of the
Old, but of the New Testament. In the same manner did the same prophets
foretell that Christ Himself would come, in whose blood the New Testament
was consecrated. Of this Testament also the apostles became the ministers,
as the most blessed Paul declares: "He hath made us able ministers of the
New Testament; not in its letter, but in spirit: for the letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life." In that testament, however, which is properly
called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is
expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after
being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of
promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over
enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and
gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these,
indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New
Testament; but yet the man who lives under God's law with those earthly
blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament,
for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms
of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the
condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively
set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give
them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what
he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical
distinction of the bond-woman and the free,--attributing the children of
the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: "They,"
says he, "which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of
God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." The children
of the flesh, then, belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage
with her children; whereas the children of the promise belong to the Jerusalem
above, the free, the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. Whence we
can easily see who they are thai appertain to the earthly, and who to the
heavenly kingdom. But then the happy persons, who even in that early age
were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth,
were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret
purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with
perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of
God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God's distribution
of the times and seasons.

CHAP. 15.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

How then should there not be a feeling of
just disquietude entertained by the children of promise, children of the
free Jerusalem, which is eternal in the heavens, when they see that by
the words of Pelagius the distinction which has been drawn by Apostolic
and catholic authority is abolished, and Agar is supposed to be by some
means on a par with Sarah? He therefore does injury to the scripture of
the Old Testament with heretical impiety, who with an impious and sacrilegious
face denies that it was inspired by the good, supreme, and very God,--as
Marcion does, as Manichaeus does, and other pests of similar opinions.
On this account (that I may put into as brief a space as I can what my
own views are on the subject), as much injury is done to the New Testament,
when it is put on the same level with the Old Testament, as is inflicted
on the Old itself when men deny it to be the work of the supreme God of
goodness. Now, when Pelagius in his answer gave as his reason for saying
that even in the Old Testament there was a promise of the kingdom of heaven,
the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly foretold that the
saints should receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was fairly decided
that the statement of Pelagius was not opposed to the catholic faith, although
not according to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises
of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament; nor
indeed was the decision an improper one, considering that mode of speech
which designates all the canonical Scriptures which were given to men before
the Lord's coming in the flesh by the title of the "Old Testament." The
kingdom of the Most High is of course none other than the kingdom of God;
otherwise, anybody might boldly contend that the kingdom of God is one
thing, and the kingdom of heaven another.

The next objection was to the effect that
Pelagius in that same book of his wrote thus "A man is able, if he likes,
to be without sin;" and that writing to a certain widow he said, flatteringly:
"In thee piety may find a dwelling-place, such as she finds nowhere else;
in thee righteousness, though a stranger, can find a home; truth, which
no one any longer recognises, can discover an abode and a friend in thee;
and the law of God, which almost everybody despises, may be honoured by
thee alone." And in another sentence he writes to her: "O how happy and
blessed art thou, when that righteousness which we must believe to flourish
only in heaven has found a shelter on earth only in thy heart!" In another
work addressed to her, after reciting the prayer of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and teaching her in what manner saints ought to pray, he
says: "He worthily raises his hands to God, and with a good conscience
does he pour out his prayer, who is able to say, 'Thou, O Lord, knowest
how holy, and harmless, and pure from all injury and iniquity and violence,
are the hands which I stretch out to Thee; how righteous, and pure, and
free from all deceit, are the lips with which I offer to Thee my supplication,
that Thou wouldst have mercy upon me.'" To all this Pelagius said in answer:
"We asserted that a man could be without sin, and could keep God's commandments
if he wished; for this capacity has been given to him by God. But we never
said that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy
to old age, had committed sin: but that if any person were converted from
his sins, he could by his own labour and God's grace be without sin; arid
yet not even thus would he be incapable of change ever afterwards. As for
the other statements which they have made against us, they are not to be
found in our books, nor have we at any time said such things." Upon hearing
this vindication, the synod put this question to him: "You have denied
having ever written such words; are you therefore ready to anathematize
those who do hold these opinions?" Pelagius answered: "I anathematize them
as fools, not as heretics, for there is no dogma." The bishops then pronounced
their judgment in these words: "Since now Pelagius has with his own mouth
anathematized this vague. statement as foolish verbiage, justly declaring
in his reply, 'That a man is able with God's assistance and grace to be
without sin,' let him now proceed to answer the other heads of accusation
against him."

CHAP. 17.--EXAMINATION OF THE SIXTH CHARGE
AND ANSWERS.

Well, now, had the judges either the power
or the right to condemn these unrecognised and vague words, when no person
on the other side was present to assert that Pelagius had written the very
culpable sentences which were alleged to have been addressed by him to
the widow? In such a matter, it surely could not be enough to produce a
manuscript, and to read out of it words as his, if there were not also
witnesses forthcoming in case he denied, on the words being read out, that
they ever dropped from his pen. But even here the judges did all that lay
in their power to do, when they asked Pelagius whether he would anathematize
the persons who held such sentiments as he declared he had never himself
propounded either in speech or in writing. And when he answered that he
did anathematize them as fools, what right had the judges to push the inquiry
any further on the matter, in the absence of Pelagius' opponents?

CHAP. 18.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

But perhaps the point requires some consideration,
whether he was right in saying that "such as held the opinions in question
deserved anathema, not as heretics, but as fools, since it was no dogma."
The question, when fairly confronted, is no doubt far from being an unimportant
one,--how far a man deserves to be described as a heretic; on this occasion,
however, the judges acted rightly in abstaining from it altogether. If
any one, for example, were to allege that eaglets are suspended in the
talons of the parent bird, and so exposed to the rays of the sun, and such
as wink are flung to the ground as spurious, the light being in some mysterious
way the gauge of their genuine nature, he is not to be accounted a heretic,
if the story happens to be untrue. And, since it occurs in the writings
of the learned and is very commonly received as fact, ought it to be considered
a foolish thing to mention it, even though it be not true? much less ought
our credit, which gains for us the name of being trustworthy, to be affected,
on the one hand injuriously if the story be believed by us, or beneficially
if disbelieved? If, to go a step further in illustration, any one were
from this opinion to contend that there existed in birds reasonable souls,
from the notion that human souls at intervals passed into them, then indeed
we should have to reject from our mind and ears alike an idea like this
as the rankest heresy; and even if the story about the eagles were true
(as there are many curious facts about bees before our eyes, that are true),
we should still have to consider, and demonstrate, the great difference
that exists between the condition of creatures like these, which are quite
irrational, however surprising in their powers of sensation, and the nature
which is common (not to men and beasts, but) to men and angels. There are,
to be sure, a great many foolish things said by foolish and ignorant persons,
which yet fail to prove them heretics. One might instance the silly talk
so commonly heard about the pursuits of other people, from persons who
have never learned these pursuits,--equally hasty and untenable whether
in the shape of excessive and indiscriminate praise of those they love,
or of blame in the case of those they happen to dislike. The same remark
might be made concerning the usual curent of human conversation: whenever
it does touch on a subject which requires dogmatic acuracy of statement,
but is thrown out at random or suggested by the passing moment, it is too
often pervaded by foolish levity, whether uttered by the mouth or expressed
in writing. Many persons, indeed, when gently reminded of their reckless
gossip, have afterwards much regretted their conduct; they scarcely recollected
what they had never uttered with a fixed purpose, but had poured forth
in a sheer volley of casual and unconsidered words. It is, unhappily, almost
impossible to be quite clear of such faults. Who is he "that slippeth not
in his tongue," and "offendeth not in word ?" It, however, makes all the
difference in the world, to what extent, and from what motive, and whether
in fact at all, a man when warned of his fault corrects it, or obstinately
clings to it so as to make a dogma and settled opinion of that which he
had not at first uttered on purpose, but only in levity. Although, then,
it turns out eventually that every heretic is a fool, it does not follow
that every fool must immediately be named a heretic. The judges were quite
right in saying that Pelagius had anathematized the vague folly under consideration
by its fitting designation for even if it were heresy, there could be no
doubt of its being foolish prattle. Whatever, therefore, it was, they designated
the offence under a general name. But whether the quoted words had been
used with any definitely dogmatic purpose, or only in a vague and indeterminate
sense, and with an unmeaningness which should be capable of an easy correction,
they did not deem it necessary to discuss on the present occasion, since
the man who was on his trial before them denied that the words were his
at all, in whatever sense they had been employed.

CHAP. 19.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

Now it so happened that, while we were reading
this defence of Pelagius in the small paper which we received at first,
there were present certain holy brethren, who said that they had in their
possession some hortatory or consolatory works which Pelagius had addressed
to a widow lady whose name did not appear, and they advised us to examine
whether the words which he had abjured for his own occurred anywhere in
these books. They were not themselves aware whether they did or not. The
said books were accordingly read through, and the words in question were
actually discovered in them. Moreover, they who had produced the copy of
the book, affirmed that for now almost four years they had had these books
as Pelagius', nor had they once heard a doubt expressed about his authorship.
Considering, then, from the integrity of these servants of God, which was
very well known to us, how impossible it was for them to use deceit in
the matter, the conclusion seemed inevitable, that Pelagius must be supposed
by us to have rather been the deceiver at his trial before the bishops;
unless we should think it possible that something may have been published,
even for so many years, in his name, although not actually composed by
him; for our informants did not tell us that they had received the books
from Pelagius himself, nor had they ever heard him admit his own authorship.
Now, in my own case, certain of our brethren have told me that sundry writings
have found their way into Spain under my name. Such persons, indeed, as
had read my genuine writings could not recognise those others as mine;
although by other persons my authorship of them was quite believed.

CHAP. 20.--THE SAME CONTINUED. PELAGIUS ACKNOWLEDGES
THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE IN DECEPTIVE TERMS.

There can be no doubt that what Pelagius has
acknowledged as his own is as yet very obscure. I suppose, however, that
it will become apparent in the subsequent details of these proceedings.
Now he says: "We have affirmed that a man is able to be without sin, and
to keep the commandments of God if he wishes, inasmuch as God has given
him this ability. But we have not said that any man can be found, who from
infancy to old age has never committed sin; but that if any person were
converted from his sins, he could by his own exertion and God's grace be
without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change afterwards."
Now it is quite uncertain what he means in these words by the grace of
God; and the judges, catholic as they were, could not possibly understand
by the phrase anything else than the grace which is so very strongly recommended
to us in the apostle's teaching. Now this is the grace whereby we hope
that we can be delivered from the body of this death through our Lord Jesus
Christ, [VII.] and for the obtaining of which we pray that we may not be
led into temptation. This grace is not nature, but that which renders assistance
to frail and corrupted nature. This grace is not the knowledge of the law,
but is that of which the apostle says: "I will not make void the grace
of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Therefore it is not "the letter that killeth, but the life-giving spirit."
For the knowledge of the law, without the grace of the Spirit, produces
all kinds of concupiscence in man; for, as the apostle says, "I had not
known sin but by the law: I had not known lust, unless the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought
in me all manner of concupiscence." By saying this, however, he blames
not the law; he rather praises it, for he says afterwards: "The law indeed
is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." And he goes on
to ask: "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But
sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good."
And, again, he praises the law by saying: "We know that the law is spiritual;
but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I know not: for what
I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which
I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good." Observe, then, he
knows the law, praises it, and consents to it; for what it commands, that
he also wishes; and what it forbids, and condemns, that he also hates:
but for all that, what he hates, that he actually does. There is in his
mind, therefore, a knowledge of the holy law of God, but still his evil
concupiscence is not cured. He has a good will within him, but still what
he does is evil. Hence it comes to pass that, amidst the mutual struggles
of the two laws within him,-"the law in his members warring against the
law of his mind, and making him captive to the law of sin," --he confesses
his misery; and exclaims in such words as these: "O wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God, throughJesus Christ our Lord."

CHAP. 21 [VIII.]--THE SAME CONTINUED.

It is not nature, therefore, which, sold as
it is under sin and wounded by the offence, longs for a Redeemer and Saviour;
nor is it the knowledge of the law--through which comes the discovery,
not the expulsion, of sin--which delivers us from the body of this death;
but it is the Lord's good grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAP. 21 [IX.]--THE SAME CONTINUED.

This grace is not dying nature, nor the slaying
letter, but the vivifying spirit; for already did he possess nature with
freedom of will, because he said: "To will is present with me." Nature,
however, in a healthy condition and without a flaw, he did not possess,
for he said: "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth nothing
good." Already had he the knowledge of God's holy law, for he said: "I
had not known sin but through the law;" yet for all that, he did not possess
strength and power to practise and fulfil righteousness, for he complained:
"What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." And again, "How
to accomplish that which is good I find not." Therefore it is not from
the liberty of the human will, nor from the precepts of the law, that there
comes deliverance from the body of this death; for both of these he had
already,--the one in his nature, the other in his learning; but all he
wanted was the help of the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHAP. 22 [X.]--THE SAME CONTINUED. THE SYNOD
SUPPOSED THAT THE GRACE ACKNOWLEDGED BY PELAGIUS WAS THAT WHICH WAS SO
THOROUGHLY KNOWN TO THE CHURCH.

This grace, then, which was most completely
known in the catholic Church (as the bishops were well aware), they supposed
Pelagius made confession of, when they heard him say that "a man, when
converted from his sins, is able by his own exertion and the grace of God
to be without sin." For my own part, however, I remembered the treatise
which had been given to me, that I might refute it, by those servants of
God, who had been Pelagius' followers.14 They, notwithstanding their great
affection for him, plainly acknowledged that the passage was his; when,
on this question being proposed, because he had already given offence to
very many persons from advancing views against the grace of God, he most
expressly admitted that "what he meant by God's grace was that, when our
nature was created, it received the capacity of not sinning, because it
was created with free will." On account, therefore, of this treatise, I
cannot help feeling still anxious, whilst many of the brethren who are
well acquainted with his discussions, share in my anxiety, lest under the
ambiguity which notoriously characterizes his words there lies some latent
reserve, and lest he should afterwards tell his followers that it was without
prejudice to his own doctrine that he made any admissions,--discoursing
thus: "I no doubt asserted that a man was able by his own exertion and
the grace of God to live without sin; but you know very well what I mean
by grace; and you may recollect reading that grace is that in which we
are created by God with a free will." Accordingly, while the bishops understood
him to mean the grace by which we have by adoption been made new creatures,
not that by which we were created (for most plainly does Holy Scripture
instruct us in the former sense of grace as the true one), ignorant of
his being a heretic, they acquitted him as a catholic. I must say that
my suspicion is excited also by this, that in the work which I answered,
he most openly said that "righteous Abel never sinned at all." Now, however,
he thus expresses himself: "But we did not say that any man could be found
who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, has committed sin; but
that, if any man were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour
and God's grace be without sin." When speaking of righteous Abel, he did
not say that after being converted from his sins he became sinless in a
new life, but that he never committed sin at all, If, then, that book be
his, it must of course be corrected and amended from his answer. For I
should be sorry to say that he was insincere in his more recent statement;
lest perhaps he should say that he had forgotten what he had previously
written in the book we have quoted. Let us therefore direct our view to
what afterwards occurred. Now, from the sequel of these ecclesiastical
proceedings, we can by God's help show that, although Pelagius, as some
suppose, cleared himself in his examination, and was at all events acquitted
by his judges (who were, however, but human beings after all), that this
great heresy, which we should be most unwilling to see making further progress
or becoming aggravated in guilt, was undoubtedly itself condemned.

CHAP. 23 [XI.]--THE SEVENTH ITEM OF THE ACCUSATION:
THE BREVIATES OF COELESTIUS OBJECTED TO PELAGIUS.

Then follow sundry statements charged against
Pelagius, which are said to be found among the opinions of his disciple
Coelestius: how that "Adam was created mortal, and would have died whether
he had sinned or not sinned; that Adam's sin injured only himself and not
the human race; that the law no less than the gospel leads us to the kingdom;
that there were sinless men previous to the coming of Christ; that new-born
infants are in the same condition as Adam was before the fall; that the
whole human race does not, on the one hand, die through Adam's death or
transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again
through the resurrection of Christ." These have been so objected to, that
they are even said to have been, after a full hearing, condemned at Carthage
by your holiness and other bishops associated with you. I was not present
on that occasion, as you will recollect; but afterwards, on my arrival
at Carthage, I read over the Acts of the synod, some of which I perfectly
well remember, but I do not know whether all the tenets now mentioned occur
among them. But what matters it if some of them were possibly not mentioned,
and so not included in the condemnation of the synod when it is quite clear
that they deserve condemnation? Sundry other points of error were next
alleged against him, connected with the mention of my own name. They had
been transmitted to me from Sicily, some of our Catholic brethren there
being perplexed by questions of this kind; and I drew up a reply to them
in a little work addressed to Hilary, who had consulted me respecting them
m a letter. My answer, in my opinion, was a sufficient one. These are the
errors referred to: "That a man is able to be without sin if he wishes.
That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich
men, even if they are baptized, unless they renounce all, have, whatever
good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them; neither
can they possess the kingdom of God."

CHAP. 24.--PELAGIUS' ANSWER TO THE CHARGES
BROUGHT TOGETHER UNDER THE SEVENTH ITEM.

The following, as the proceedings testify,
was Pelagius' own answer to these charges against him: "Concerning a man's
being able indeed to be without sin, we have spoken," says he, "already;
concerning the fact, however, that before the Lord's coming there were
persons without sin, we say now that, previous to Christ's advent, some
men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred
Scriptures. The rest were not said by me, as even their testimony goes
to show, and for them, I do not feel that I am responsible. But for the
satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold,
or have ever held, these opinions." After hearing this answer of his, the
synod said: "With regard to these charges aforesaid, Pelagius has in our
presence given us sufficient and proper satisfaction, by anathematizing
the opinions which were not his." We 'see, therefore, and maintain that
the most pernicious evils of this heresy have been condemned, not only
by Pelagius, but also by the holy bishops who presided over that inquiry:--that
"Adam was made mortal;" (and, that the meaning of this statement might
be more clearly understood, it was added, "and he would have died whether
he had sinned or not sinned;") that his Sin injured only himself and not
the human race; that the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the
kingdom of heaven; that new born infants are in the same condition that
Adam was before the fall; that the entire human race does not, on the one
hand, die through Adam's death and transgression, nor, on the other hand,
does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ;
that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life; that rich
men even if baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever
good they may seem to have done nothing of it reckoned to them, neither
can they possess the kingdom of God;"--all these opinions, at any rate,
were clearly condemned in that ecclesiastical court,--Pelagius pronouncing
the anathema, and the bishops the interlocutory sentence.

CHAP. 25.--THE PELAGIANS FALSELY PRETENDED
THAT THE EASTERN CHURCHES WERE ON THEIR SIDE.

Now, by reason of these questions, and the
very contentious assertions of these tenets, which are everywhere accompanied
with heated feelings, many weak brethren were disturbed. We have accordingly,
in the anxiety of that love which it becomes us to feel towards the Church
of Christ through His grace, and out of regard to Marcellinus of blessed
memory (who was extremely vexed day by day by these disputers, and who
asked my advice by letter), been obliged to write on some of these questions,
and especially on the baptism of infants. On this same subject also I afterwards,
at your request, and assisted by your prayers, delivered an earnest address,
to the best of my ability, in the church of the Majores, holding in my
hands an epistle of the most glorious martyr Cyprian, and reading therefrom
and applying his words on the very matter, in order to remove this dangerous
error out of the hearts of sundry persons, who had been persuaded to take
up with the opinions which, as we see, were condemned in these proceedings.
These opinions it has been attempted by their promoters to force upon the
minds of some of the brethren, by threatening, as if from the Eastern Churches,
that unless they adopted the said opinions, they would be formally condemned
by those Churches. Observe, however, that no less than fourteen bishops
of the Eastern Church, assembled in synod in the land where the Lord manifested
His presence in the days of His flesh, refused to acquit Pillages unless
he condemned these opinions as opposed to the Catholic faith. Since, therefore,
he was then acquitted because he anathematized such views, it follows beyond
a doubt that the said opinions were condemned. This, indeed, will appear
more clearly still, and on still stronger evidence, in the sequel.

CHAP. 26.--THE ACCUSATIONS IN THE SEVENTH
ITEM, WHICH PILLAGES CONFESSED.

Let us now see what were the two points out
of all that were alleged which Pillages was unwilling to anathematize,
and admitted to be his own opinions, but to remove their offensive aspect
explained m what sense he held them. "That a man," says he, "is able to
be without sin has been asserted already." Asserted no doubt, and we remember
the assertion quite well; but still it was mitigated, and approved by the
judges, in that God's grace was added, concerning which nothing was said
in the original draft of his doctrine. Touching the second, however, of
these points, we ought to pay careful attention to what he said in answer
to the charge against him. "Concerning the fact, indeed," says he, "that
before the Lord's coming there were persons without sin, we now again assert
that previous to Christ's advent some men lived holy and righteous lives,
according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures." He did not dare to
say: "We now again assert that previous to Christ's advent there were persons
without sin," although this had been laid to his charge after the very
words of Coelestius. For he perceived how dangerous such a statement was,
and into what trouble it would bring him. So he reduced the sentence to
these harmless dimensions: "We again assert that before the coming of Christ
there were persons who led holy and righteous lives." Of course there were:
who would deny it? But to say this is a very different thing from saying
that they lived "without sin." Because, indeed, those ancient worthies
lived holy and righteous lives, they could for that very reason better
confess: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us." In the present day, also, many men live holy and righteous
lives; but yet it is no untruth they utter when in their prayer they say:
"Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors." This avowal was
accordingly acceptable to the judges, in the sense in which Pelagius solemnly
declared his belief; but certainly not in the sense which Coelestius, according
to the original charge against him, was said to hold. We must now treat
in detail of the topics which still remain, to the best of our ability.

CHAP. 27 [XII.] --THE EIGHTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION.

Pelagius was charged with having said: "That
the Church here is without spot or wrinkle." It was on this point that
the Donatists also were constantly at conflict with us in our conference.
We used, in their case, to lay especial stress on the mixture of bad men
with good, like that of the chaff with the wheat; and we were led to this
idea by the similitude of the threshing-floor. We might apply the same
illustration in answer to our present opponents, unless indeed they would
have the Church consist only of good men, whom they assert to be without
any sin whatever, that so the Church might be without spot or wrinkle.
If this be their meaning, then I repeat the same words as I quoted just
now; for how can they be members of the Church, of whom the voice of a
truthful humility declares, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us?" or how could the Church offer up
that prayer which the Lord taught her to use, "Forgive us our debts," if
in this world the Church is without a spot or blemish? In short, they must
themselves submit to be strictly catechised respecting themselves: do they
really allow that they have any sins of their own? If their answer is in
the negative, then they must be plainly told that they are deceiving themselves,
and the truth is not in them. If, however, they shall acknowledge that
they do commit sin, what is this but a confession of their own wrinkle
and spot? They therefore are not members of the Church; because the Church
is without spot and wrinkle, while they have both spot and wrinkle.

CHAP. 28.--PELAGIUS' REPLY TO THE EIGHTH ITEM
OF ACCUSATION.

But to this objection he replied with a watchful
caution such as the catholic judges no doubt approved. "It has," says he,
"been asserted by me,-- but in such a sense that the Church is by the layer
cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and in this purity the Lord wishes
her to continue." Whereupon the synod said: "Of this also we approve."
And who amongst us denies that in baptism the sins of all men are remitted,
and that all believers come up spotless and pure from the layer of regeneration?
Or what catholic Christian is there who wishes not, as his Lord also wishes,
and as it is meant to be, that the Church should remain always without
spot or wrinkle? For in very deed God is now in His mercy and truth bringing
it about, that His holy Church should be conducted to that perfect state
in which she is to remain without spot or wrinkle for evermore. But between
the layer, where all past stains and deformities are removed, and the kingdom,
where the Church will remain for ever without any spot or wrinkle, there
is this present intermediate time of prayer, during which her cry must
of necessity be: "Forgive us our debts." Hence arose the objection against
them for saying that "the Church here on earth is without spot or wrinkle;"
from the doubt whether by this opinion they did not boldly prohibit that
prayer whereby the Church in her present baptized state entreats day and
night for herself the forgiveness of her sins. On the subject of this intervening
period between the remission of sins which takes place in baptism, and
the perpetuity of sinlessness which is to be in the kingdom of heaven,
no proceedings ensued with Pelagius, and no decision was pronounced by
the bishops. Only he thought that some brief indication ought to be given
that he had not expressed himself in the way which the accusation against
him seemed to state. As to his saying," This has been asserted by me,--but
in such a sense," what else did he mean to convey than the idea that he
had not in fact expressed himself in the same manner as he was supposed
to have done by his accusers? That, however, which induced the judges to
say that they were satisfied with his answer was baptism as the means of
being washed from our sins; and the kingdom of heaven, in which the holy
Church, which is now in process of cleansing, shall continue in a sinless
state for ever: this is clear from the evidence, so far as I can form an
opinion.

The next objections were urged out of the
book of Coelestius, following the contents of each several chapter, but
rather according to the sense than the words. These indeed he expatiates
on rather fully; they, however, who presented the indictment against Pelagius
said that they had been unable at the moment to adduce all the words. In
the first chapter, then, of Coelestius' book they alleged that the following
was written: "That we do more than is commanded us in the law and the gospel."
To this Pelagius replied: "This they have set down as my statement. What
we said, however, was in keeping with the apostle's assertion concerning
virginity, of which Paul writes: 'I have no commandment of the Lord.'"Upon
this the synod said: "This also the Church receives." I have read for myself
the meaning which Coelestius gives to this in his book,--for he does not
deny that the book is his. Now he made this statement obviously with the
view of persuading us that we possess through the nature of free will so
great an ability for avoiding sin, that we are able to do more than is
commanded us; for a perpetual virginity is maintained by very many persons,
and this is not commanded; whereas, in order to avoid sin, it is sufficient
to fulfil what is commanded. When the judges, however, accepted Pelagius'
answer, they did not take it to convey the idea that those persons keep
all the commandments of the law and the gospel who over and above maintain
the state of virginity, which is not commanded,--but only this, that virginity,
which is not commanded, is something more than conjugal chastity, which
is commanded; so that to observe the one is of course more than to keep
the other; whereas, at the same time, neither can be maintained without
the grace of God, inasmuch as the apostle, in speaking of this very subject,
says: "But I would that all men were even as I myself. Every man, however,
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."
And even the Lord Himself, upon the disciples remarking, "If the case of
the man be so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (or, as it may
be better expressed in Latin, "it is not expedient to take a wife"), said
to them: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."
This, therefore, is the doctrine which the bishops of the synod declared
to be received by the Church, that the state of virginity, persevered in
to the last, which is not commanded, is more than the chastity of married
life, which is commanded. In what view Pelagius or Coelestius regarded
this subject, the judges were not aware.

CHAP. 30 [XIV.]--THE TENTH ITEM IN THE ACCUSATION.
THE MORE PROMINENT POINTS OF COELESTIUS' WORK CONTINUED.

After this we find objected against Pelagius
some other points of Coelestius' teaching,--prominent ones, and undoubtedly
worthy of condemnation; such, indeed, as would certainly have involved
Pelagius in condemnation, if he had not anathematized them in the synod.
Under his third head Coelestius was alleged to have written: "That God's
grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in
the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine." And again: "That
God's grace is given in proportion to our deserts; because, were He to
give it to sinful persons, He would seem to be unrighteous." And from these
words he inferred that "therefore grace itself has been placed in my will,
according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it. For if we do
all things by grace, then whenever we are overcome by sin, it is not we
who are overcome, but God's grace, which wanted by all means to help us,
but was not able." And once more he says: "If, when we conquer sin, it
is by the grace of God; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered
by sin, because He was either altogether unable or unwilling to keep us
safe." To these charges Pelagius replied: "Whether these are really the
opinions of Coelestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they
are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary,
I anathematize every one who does entertain them." Then the synod said:
"This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words."
Now certainly there can be no mistake, in regard to these opinions, either
as to the clear way in which Pelagius pronounced on them his anathema,
or as to the absolute terms in which the bishops condemned them. Whether
Pelagius or Coelestius, or both of them, or neither of them, or other persons
with them or in their name, have ever held or still hold these sentiments,--may
be doubtful or obscure; but nevertheless by this judgment of the bishops
it has been declared plainly enough that they have been condemned, and
that Pelagius would have been condemned along with them, unless he had
himself condemned them too. Now, after this trial, it is certain that whenever
we enter on a controversy touching opinions of this kind, we only discuss
an already condemned heresy.

CHAP. 31.--REMARKS ON THE TENTH ITEM.

I shall make my next remark with greater satisfaction.
In a former section I expressed a fear that, when Pelagius said that "a
man was able by the help of God's grace to live without sin," he perhaps
meant by the term "grace" the capability possessed by nature as created
by God with a free will, as it is understood in that book which I received
as his and to which I replied; and that by these means he was deceiving
thejudges, who were ignorant of the circumstances.
Now, however, since he anathematizes those persons who hold that "God's
grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in
the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine," it is quite evident
that he really means the grace which is preached in the Church of Christ,
and is conferred by the ministration of the Holy Ghost for the purpose
of helping us in our single actions, whence it is that we pray for needful
and suitable grace that we enter not into any temptation. Nor, again, have
I any longer a fear that, when he said, "No man can be without sin unless
he has acquired a knowledge of the law," and added this explanation of
his words, that "he posited in the knowledge of the law, help towards the
avoidance of sin," he at all meant the said knowledge to be considered
as tantamount to the grace of God; for, observe, he anathematizes such
as hold this opinion. See, too, how he refuses to hold our natural free
will, or the law and doctrine, as equivalent to that grace of God which
helps us through our single actions What else then is left to him but to
understand that grace which the apostle tells us is given by "the supply
of the Spirit?" and concerning which the Lord said: "Take no thought how
or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what
ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you." Nor, again, need I be under any apprehension that,
when he asserted, "All men are ruled by their own will," and afterwards
explained that he had made that statement "in the interest of the freedom
of our will, of which God is the helper whenever it makes choice of good,"
that he perhaps here also held God's helping grace as synonymous with our
natural free will and the teaching of the law. For inasmuch as he rightly
anathematized the persons who hold that God's grace or assistance is not
given for single actions, but lies in the gift of free will, or in the
law and doctrine, it follows, of course, that God's grace or assistance
is given us for single actions,--free will, or the law and the doctrine,
being left out of consideration; and thus through all the single actions
of our life, when we act rightly, we are ruled and directed by God; nor
is our prayer a useless one, wherein we say: "Order my steps according
to Thy word, and let not any iniquity have dominion. over me."

CHAP. 32.--THE ELEVENTH ITEM OF THE ACCUSATION.

But what comes afterwards again fills me with
anxiety. On its being objected to him, from the fifth chapter of Coelestius'
book, that " they say that every individual has the ability to possess
all powers and graces, thus taking away that 'diversity of graces, which
the apostle teaches," Pelagius replied: "We have certainly said so much;
but yet they have laid against us a malignant and blundering charge. We
do not take away the diversity of graces; but we declare that God gives
to the person, who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces,
even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul." Hereupon the Synod said:
"You accordingly do yourself hold the doctrine of the Church touching the
gift of the graces, which are collectively possessed by the apostle." Here
some one may say, "Why then is he anxious? Do you on your side deny that
all the powers and graces were combined in the apostle?" For my own part,
indeed, if all those are to be understood which the apostle has himself
mentioned together in one passage,--as, I suppose, the bishops understood
Pelagius to mean when they approved of his answer, and pronounced it to
be in keeping with the sense of the Church,--then I do not doubt that the
apostle had them all; for he says: "And God hath set some in the Church,
first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles;
then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." What
then? shall we say that the Apostle Paul did not possess all these gifts
himself? Who would be bold enough to assert this? The very fact that he
was an apostle showed, of course, that he possessed the grace of the apostolate.
He possessed also that of prophecy; for was not that a prophecy of his
in which lie says: "In the last times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils?" He was, moreover,
"the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity? He performed miracles
also and cures; for he shook off from his hand, unhurt, the biting viper;
and the cripple stood upright on his feet at the apostle's word, and his
strength was at once restored. It is not clear what he means by helps,
for the term is of very wide application; but who can say that he was wanting
even in this grace, when through his labours such helps were manifestly
afforded towards the salvation of mankind? Then as to his possessing the
grace of "government," what could be more excellent than his administration,
when the Lord at that time governed so many churches by his personal agency,
and governs them still in our day through his epistles? And in respect
of the "diversities of tongues," what tongues could have been wanting to
him, when he says himself: "I thank my God that I speak with tongues more
than you all?"

It being thus inevitable to suppose that not
one of these was wanting to the Apostle Paul, the judges approved of Pelagius'
answer, wherein he said "that all graces were conferred upon him." But
there are other graces in addition to these which are not mentioned here.
For it is not to be supposed, however greatly the Apostle Paul excelled
others as a member of Christ's body, that the very Head itself of the entire
body did not receive more and ampler graces still, whether in His flesh
or His soul as man; for such a created nature did the Word of God assume
as His own into the unity of His Person, that He might be our Head, and
we His body. And in very deed, if all gifts could be in each member, it
would be evident that the similitude, which is used to illustrate this
subject, of the several members of our body is inapplicable; for some things
are common to the members in general, such as life and health, whilst other
things are peculiar to the separate members, since the ear has no perception
of colours, nor the eye of voices. Hence it is written: "If the whole body
were an eye, where were the hearing? if the whole were hearing, where were
the smelling?" Now this of course is not said as if it were impossible
for God to impart to the ear the sense of seeing, or to the eye the function
of hearing. However, what He does in Christ's body, which is the Church,
and what the apostle meant by diversity of graces? as if through the different
members, there might be gifts proper even to every one separately, is clearly
known. Why, too, and on what ground they who raised the objection were
so unwilling to have taken away all difference in graces, why, moreover,
the bishops of the synod were able to approve of the answer given by Pelagius
in deference to the Apostle Paul, in whom we admit the combination of all
those graces which he mentioned in the one particular passage, is by this
time clear also.

CHAP. 33. -- DISCUSSION OF THE ELEVENTH ITEM
CONTINUED.

What, then, is the reason why, as I said just
now, I felt anxious on the subject of this head of his doctrine? It is
occasioned by what Pelagius says in these words: "That God gives to the
man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces, even as
He conferred them on the Apostle Paul." Now, I should not have felt any
anxiety about this answer of Pelagius, if it were not closely connected
with the cause which we are bound to guard with the utmost care--even that
God's grace may never be attacked, while we are silent or dissembling in
respect of so great an evil. As, therefore, he does not say, that God gives
to whom He will, but that "God gives to the man who has proved himself
worthy to receive them, all these graces," I could not help being suspicious,
when I read such words. For the very name of grace, and the thing that
is meant by it, is taken away, if it is not bestowed gratuitously, but
he only receives it who is worthy of it. Will anybody say that I do the
apostle wrong, because I do not admit him to have been worthy of grace?
Nay, I should indeed rather do him wrong, and bring on myself a punishment,
if I refused to believe what he himself says. Well, now, has he not pointedly
so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed
gratuitously? These are his own very words: "And if by grace, then is it
no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." In accordance with
this, he says again: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned
of grace, but of debt." Whosoever, therefore, is worthy, to him it is due;
and if it is thus due to him, it ceases to be grace; for grace is given,
but a debt is paid. Grace, therefore, is given to those who are unworthy,
that a debt may be paid to them when they become worthy. He, however, who
has bestowed on the unworthy the gifts which they possessed not before,
does Himself take care that they shall have whatever things He means to
recompense to them when they become worthy.

CHAP. 34.--THE SAME CONTINUED. ON THE WORKS
OF UNBELIEVERS; FAITH IS THE INITIAL PRINCIPLE FROM WHICH GOOD WORKS HAVE
THEIR BEGINNING; FAITH IS THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE.

He will perhaps say to this: "It was not because
of his works, but in consequence of his faith, that I said the apostle
was worthy of having all those great graces bestowed upon him. His faith
deserved this distinction, but not his works, which were not previously
good." Well, then, are we to suppose that faith does not work? Surely faith
does work in a very real way, for it "worketh by love." Preach up, however,
as much as you like, the works of unbelieving men, we still know how true
and invincible is the statement of this same apostle: "Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin." The very reason, indeed, why he so often declares that
righteousness is imputed to us, not out of our works, but our faith, whereas
faith rather works through love, is that no man should think that be arrives
at faith itself through the merit of his works; for it is faith which is
the beginning whence good works first proceed; since (as has already been
stated) whatsoever comes not from faith is sin. Accordingly, it is said
to the Church, in the Song of Songs: "Thou shalt come and pass by from
the beginning of faith."1 Although, therefore, faith procures the grace
of producing good works, we certainly do not deserve by any faith that
we should have faith itself; but, in its bestowal upon us, in order that
we may follow the Lord by its help, "His mercy has prevented us." Was it
we ourselves that gave it to us ? Did we ourselves make ourselves faithful?
I must by all means say here, emphatically: "It is He that hath made us,
and not we ourselves." And indeed nothing else than this is pressed upon
us in the apostle's teaching, when he says: "For I declare, through the
grace that is given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think
of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according
as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Whence, too, arises
the well-known challenge: "What hast thou that thou didst not receive ?"
inasmuch as we have received even that which is the spring from which everything
we have of good in our actions takes its beginning.

CHAP. 35.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

"What, then, is the meaning of that which
the same apostle says: ' I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown
of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at
that day;' if these are not recompenses paid to the worthy, but gifts,
bestowed on the unworthy?" He who says this, does not consider that the
crown could not have been given to the man who is worthy of it, unless
grace had been first bestowed on him whilst unworthy of it. He says indeed:
"I have fought a good fight; "6 but then he also says: "Thanks be to God,
who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord." He says too:
"I have finished my course;" but he says again: "It is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." He says,
moreover: "I have kept the faith;" but then it is he too who says again:
"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep
my deposit against that day "--that is, "my commendation;" for some copies
have not the word depositum, but commendatum, which yields a plainer sense.
Now, what do we commend to God's keeping, except the things which we pray
Him to preserve for us, and amongst these our very faith? For what else
did the Lord procure for the Apostle Peter by His prayer for him, of which
He said," I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not," than
that God would preserve his faith, that it should not fail I by giving
way to temptation? Therefore, blessed Paul, thou great preacher of grace,
I will say it without fear of any man (for who will be less angry with
me for so saying than thyself, who hast told us What to say, and taught
us what to teach?)--I will, I repeat, say it, and fear no man for the assertion:
Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but thy merits are the
gifts of God!

CHAP. 36.--THE SAME CONTINUED. THE MONK PELAGIUS.
GRACE IS CONFERRED ON THE UNWORTHY.

His due reward, therefore, is recompensed
to the apostle as worthy of it; but still it was grace which bestowed on
him the apostleship itself, which was not his due, and of which he was
not worthy. Shall I be sorry for having said this? God forbid! For under
his own testimony shall I find a ready protection from such reproach; nor
will any man charge me with audacity, unless he be himself audacious enough
to charge the apostle with mendacity. He frankly says, nay he protests,
that he commends the gifts of God within himself, so that he glories not
in himself at all, but in the Lord; he not only declares that he possessed
no good deserts in himself why he should be made an apostle, but he even
mentions his own demerits, in order to manifest and preach the grace of
God. "I am not meet," says he, "to be called an apostle;" and what else
does this mean than "I am not worthy"--as indeed several Latin copies read
the phrase. Now this, to be sure, is the very gist of our question; for
undoubtedly in this grace of apostleship all those graces are contained.
For it was neither convenient nor right that an apostle should not possess
the gift of prophecy, nor be a teacher, nor be illustrious for miracles
and the gifts of healings, nor furnish needful helps, nor provide governments
over the churches, nor excel in diversities of tongues. All these functions
the one name of apostleship embraces. Let us, therefore, consult the man
himself, nay listen wholly to him. Let us say to him: "Holy Apostle Paul,
the monk Pelagius declares that thou wast worthy to receive all the graces
of thine apostleship. What dost thou say thyself?" He answers: "I am not
worthy to be called an apostle." Shall I then, under pretence of honouring
Paul, in a matter concerning Paul, dare to believe Pelagius in preference
to Paul? I will not do so; for if I did, I should only prove to be more
onerous to myself than honouring to him. Let us hear also why he is not
worthy to be called an apostle: "Because," says he, "I persecuted the Church
of God." Now, were we to follow up the idea here expressed, who would not
judge that he rather deserved from Christ condemnation, instead of an apostolic
call? Who could so love the preacher as not to loathe the persecutor? Well,
therefore, and truly does he say of himself: "I am not worthy to be called
an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God." As thou wroughtest
then such evil, how camest thou to earn such good ? Let all men hear his
answer: "But by the grace of God, I am what I am." Is there, then, no other
way in which grace is commended, than because it is conferred on an unworthy
recipient? "And His grace," he adds, "which was bestowed on me was not
in vain." He says this as a lesson to others also, to show the freedom
of the will, when he says: "We then, as workers together with Him, beseech
you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." Whence however
does he derive his proof, that "His grace bestowed on himself was not in
vain," except from the fact which he goes on to mention: "But I laboured
more abundantly than they all ?" So it seems he did not labour in order
to receive grace, but he received grace in order that he might labour.
And thus, when unworthy, he gratuitously received grace, whereby he might
become worthy to receive the due reward. Not that he ventured to claim
even his labour for himself; for, after saying: "I laboured more abundantly
than they all," he at once subjoined: "Yet not I, but the grace of God
which was with me." O mighty teacher, confessor, and preacher of grace!
What meaneth this: "I laboured more, yet not I ?" Where the will exalted
itself ever so little, there piety was instantly on the watch, and humility
trembled, because weakness recognised itself.

CHAP. 37--THE SAME CONTINUED. JOHN, BISHOP
OF JERUSALEM, AND HIS EXAMINATION.With great propriety, as the proceedings
show, did John, the holy overseer of the Church of Jerusalem, employ the
authority of this same passage of the apostle, as he himself told our brethren
the bishops who were his assessors at that trial, on their asking him what
proceedings had taken place before him previous to the triad He told them
that "on the occasion in question, whilst some were whispering, and remarking
on Pelagius' statement, that 'without God's grace man was able to attain
perfection' (that is, as he had previously expressed it, 'man was able.
to be without sin'), he censured the statement, and reminded them besides,
that even the Apostle Paul, after so many labours--not indeed in his own
strength, but by the grace of God--said: ' I laboured more abundantly than
they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me; ' and again:
' It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
showeth mercy;' and again: 'Except the Lord build the house, they labour
but in vain who build it.' And," he added, "we quoted several other like
passages out of the Holy Scriptures. When, however, they did not receive
the quotations which we made out of the Holy Scriptures, but continued
their murmuring noise, Pelagius said: 'This is what I also believe; let
him be anathema, who declares that a man is able, without God's help, to
arrive at the perfection of all virtues.'"

CHAP. 38 [XV.]--THE SAME CONTINUED.

Bishop John narrated all this in the hearing
of Pelagius; but he, of course, might respectfully say: "Your holiness
is in error; you do not accurately remember the facts. It was not in reference
to the passages of Scripture which you have quoted that I uttered the words:
'This is what I also believe.' Because this is not my opinion of them.
I do not understand them to say, that God's grace so co-operates with man,
that his abstinence from sin is due, not to 'him that willeth, nor to him
that runneth, but to God that showeth mercy.'"

CHAP. 39 [XVI.] --THE SAME CONTINUED. HEROS
AND LAZARUS; OROSIUS.

Now there are some expositions of Paul's Epistle
to the Romans which are said to have been written by Pelagius himself,
--in which he asserts, that the passage: "Not of him that willeth, nor
of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," was "not said in Paul's
own person; but that he therein employed the language of questioning and
refutation, as if such a statement ought not to be made." No safe conclusion,
therefore, can be drawn, although the bishop John plainly acknowledged
the passage in question as conveying the mind of the apostle, and mentioned
it for the very purpose of hindering Pelagius from thinking that any man
can avoid sin without God's grace, and declared that Pelagius said in answer:
"This is what I also believe," and did not, upon hearing all this, repudiate
his admission by replying: "This is not my belief." He ought, indeed, either
to deny altogether, or unhesitatingly to correct and amend this perverse
exposition, in which he would have it, that the apostle must not be regarded
as entertaining the sentiment,1 but rather as refuting it. Now, whatever
Bishop John said of our brethren who were absent-- whether our brother
bishops Heros and Lazarus, or the presbyter Orosius, or any others whose
names are not there registered, --I am sure that he did not mean it to
operate to their prejudice. For, had they been present, they might possibly
(I am far from saying it absolutely) have convicted him of untruth; at
any rate they might perhaps have reminded him of something he had forgotten,
or something in which he might have been deceived by the Latin interpreter--not,
to be sure, for the purpose of misleading him by untruth, but at least,
owing to some difficulty occasioned by a foreign language, only imperfectly
understood; especially as the question was not treated in the Proceedings,
which were drawn up for the useful purpose of preventing deceit on the
part of evil men, and of preserving a record to assist the memory of good
men. If, however, any man shall be disposed by this mention of our brethren
to introduce any question or doubt on the subject, and summon them before
the Episcopal judgment, they will not be wanting to themselves, as occasion
shall serve. Why need we here pursue the point, when not even the judges
themselves, after the narrative of our brother bishop, were inclined to
pronounce any definite sentence in consequence of it ?

CHAP. 40 [XVII.]--THE SAME CONTINUED.

Since, then, Pelagius was present when these
passages of the Scriptures were discussed, and by his silence acknowledged
having said that he entertained the same view of their meaning, how happens
it, that, after reconsidering the apostle's testimony, as he had just done,
and finding that he said: "I am not meet to be called an apostle, because
I persecuted the Church of God; but by the grace of God I am what I am,"4
he did not perceive that it was improper for him to say, respecting the
question of the abundance of the graces which the said apostle received,
that he had shown himself "worthy to receive them," when the apostle himself
not only confessed, but added a reason to prove, that he was unworthy of
them--and by this very fact set forth grace as grace indeed? If he could
not for some reason or other consider or recollect the narrative of his
holiness the bishop John, which he had heard some time before, he might
surely have respected his own very recent answer at the synod, and remembered
how he anathematized, but a short while before, the opinions which had
been alleged against him out of Coelestius. Now among these it was objected
to him that Coelestius had said: "That the grace of God is bestowed according
to our merits." If, then, Pelagius truthfully anathematized this, why does
he say that all those graces were conferred on the apostle because he deserved
them ? Is the phrase "worthy to receive" of different meaning from the
expression "to receive according to merit"? Can he by any disputatious
subtlety show that a man is worthy who has no merit? But neither Coelestius,
nor any other, all of whose opinions he anathematized, has any intention
to allow him to throw clouds over the phrase, and to conceal himself behind
them. He presses home the matter, and plainly says: "And this grace has
been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy
of it." If, then, a statement, wherein it is declared that "God's grace
is given in proportion to our deserts, to such as are worthy," was rightly
and truly condemned by Pelagius, how could his heart permit him to think,
or his mouth to utter, such a sentence as this: "We say that God gives
to the person who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces
? " Who that carefully considers all this can help feeling some anxiety
about his answer or defence?

CHAP. 41.--AUGUSTIN INDULGENTLY SHOWS THAT
THE JUDGES ACTED INCAUTIOUSLY IN THEIR OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF THE CASE OF
PELAGIUS.

Why, then (some one will say), did the judges
approve of this? I confess that I hardly even now understand why they did.
It is, however, not to be wondered at, if some brief word or Phrase too
easily escaped their attention and ear; or if, because they thought it
capable of being somehow interpreted in a correct sense, from seeming to
have from the accused himself such clear confessions of truth on the subject,
they decided it to be hardly worth while to excite a discussion about a
word. The same feeling might have occurred to ourselves also, if we had
sat with them at the trial. For if, instead of the term worthy, the word
predestinated had been used, or some such word, my mind would certainly
not have entertained any doubt, much less have been disquieted by it; and
yet if it were asserted, that he who is justified by the election of grace
is called worthy, through no antecedent merits of good indeed, but by destination,
just as he is called "elect," it would be really difficult to determine
whether he might be so designated at all, or at least without some offence
to an intelligent view of the subject.

As for myself, indeed, I might readily pass
on from the discussion on this word, were it not that the treatise which
called forth my reply, and in which he says that there is no God's grace
at all except our own nature gratuitously created with free will, made
me suspicious and anxious about the actual meaning of Pelagius--whether
he had procured the introduction of the term into the argument without
any accurate intention as to its sense, or else as a carefully drawn dogmatic
expression. The last remaining statements had such an effect on the judges,
that they deemed them worthy of condemnation, without waiting for Pelagius'
answer.

CHAP. 42 [XVIII.]--THE TWELFTH ITEM IN THE
ACCUSATION. OTHER HEADS OF COELESTIUS' DOCTRINE ABJURED BY PELAGIUS.

For it was objected that in the sixth chapter
of Coelestius' work there was laid down this position: "Men cannot be called
sons of God, unless they have become entirely free from all sin." It follows
from this statement, that not even the Apostle Paul is a child of God,
since he said: "Not as though I had already attained, either were already
perfect."2 In the seventh chapter he makes this statement: "Forgetfulness
and ignorance have no connection with sin, as they do not happen through
the will, but through necessity;" although David says: "Remember not the
sins of my youth, nor my sins of ignorance;" although too, in the law,
sacrifices are offered for ignorance, as if for sin. In his tenth Chapter
he says: "Our will is free, if it needs the help of God; inasmuch as every
one in the possession of his proper will has either something to do or
to abstain from doing." In the twelfth he says: "Our victory comes not
from God's help, but from our own free will." And this is a conclusion
which he was said to draw in the following terms: "The victory is ours,
seeing that we took up arms of our Own will; just as, on the other hand,
being conquered is our own, since it was of our own will that we neglected
to arm ourselves." And, after quoting the phrase of the Apostle Peter,
"partakers of the divine nature," he is said to have made out of it this
argument: "Now if our spirit or soul is Unable to be without sin, then
even God is subject to sin, since this part of Him, that is to say, the
soul, is exposed to sin." In his thirteenth chapter he says: "That pardon
is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but
according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they
have been worthy of mercy."

[CHAP. 43 [XIX.]--THE ANSWER OF THE MONK PELAGIUS
AND HIS PROFESSION OF FAITH.

After all these sentences were read out, the
synod said: "What says the monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion
which have been read in his presence? For this holy synod condemns the
whole, as does also God's Holy Catholic Church." Pelagius answered: "I
say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony,
are not mine; nor for them, as I have already said, ought I to be held
responsible. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain
are sound; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according
to the judgment of this holy synod, pronouncing anathema on every man who
opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. For I believe
in the Trinity of the one substance, and I hold all things in accordance
with the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. If indeed any man entertains
opinions different from her, let him be anathema."

CHAP. 44 [xx.] --THE ACQUITTAL OF PELAGIUS.The synod said: "Now since we have received
satisfaction on the points which have come before us touching the monk
Pelagius, who has been present; since, too, he gives his consent to the
pious doctrines, and even anathematizes everything that is contrary to
the Church's faith, we confess him to belong to the communion of the Catholic
Church."

CHAP. 45 [XXI.] -- PELAGIUS' ACQUITTAL BECOMES
SUSPECTED.

If these are the proceedings by which Pelagius'
friends rejoice that he was exculpated, we, on our part,--since he certainly
took much pains to prove that we were well affected towards him, by going
so far as to produce even our private letters to him, and reading them
at the trial,--undoubtedly wish and desire his salvation in Christ; but
as regards his exculpation, which is rather believed than clearly shown,
we ought not to be in a hurry to exult. When I say this, indeed, I do not
charge the judges either with negligence or connivance, or with consciously
holding unsound doctrine--which they most certainly would be the very last
to entertain. But although by their sentence Pelagius is held by those
who are on terms of fullest and closest intimacy with him to have been
deservedly acquitted, with the approval and commendation of his judges,
he certainly does not appear to me to have been cleared of the charges
brought against him. They conducted his trial as of one whom they knew
nothing of, especially in the absence of those who had prepared the indictment
against him, and were quite unable to examine him with diligence and care;
but, in spite of this inability, they completely destroyed the heresy itself,
as even the defenders of his perverseness must allow, if they only follow
the judgment through its particulars. As for those persons, however, who
well know what Pelagius has been in the habit of teaching, or who have
had to oppose his contentious efforts, or those who, to their joy, have
escaped from his erroneous doctrine, how can they possibly help suspecting
him, when they read the affected confession, wherein he acknowledges past
errors, but so expresses himself as if he had never entertained any other
opinion than those which he stated in his replies to the satisfaction of
the judges ?

CHAP. 46 [XXII.]--HOW PELAGIUS BECAME KNOWN
TO AUGUSTIN; COELESTIUS CONDEMNED AT CARTHAGE.

Now, that I may especially refer to my own
relation to him, I first became acquainted with Pelagius' name, along with
great praise of him, at a distance, and when he was living at Rome. Afterwards
reports began to reach us, that he disputed against the grace of God. This
caused me much pain, for I could not refuse to believe the statements of
my informants; but yet I was desirous of ascertaining information on the
matter either from himself or from some treatise of his, that, in case
I should have to discuss the question with him, it should be on grounds
which he could not disown. On his arrival, however, in Africa, he was in
my absence kindly received on our coast of Hippo, where, as I found from
our brethren, nothing whatever of this kind was heard from him; because
he left earlier than was expected. On a subsequent occasion, indeed, I
caught a glimpse of him, once or twice, to the best of my recollection,
when I was very much occupied in preparing for the conference which we
were to hold with the heretical Donatists; but he hastened away across
the sea. Meanwhile the doctrines connected with his name were warmly maintained,
and passed from mouth to mouth, among his reputed followers--to such an
extent that Coelestius found his way before an ecclesiastical tribunal,
and reported opinions well suited to his perverse character. We thought
it would be a better way of proceeding against them, if, without mentioning
any names of individuals, the errors themselves were met and refuted; and
the men might thus be brought to a right mind by the fear of a condemnation
from the Church rather than be punished by the actual condemnation. And
so both by books and by popular discussions we ceased not to oppose the
evil doctrines in question.

CHAP. 47 [XXIII.]--PELAGIUS' BOOK, WHICH WAS
SENT BY TIMASIUS AND JACOBUS TO AUGUSTIN, WAS ANSWERED BY THE LATTER IN
HIS WORK "ON NATURE AND GRACE."

But when there was actually placed in my hands,
by those faithful servants of God and honourable men, Timasius and Jacobus,
the treatise in which Pelagius dealt with the question of God's grace,
it became very evident to me--too evident, indeed, to admit of any further
doubt--how hostile to salvation by Christ was his poisonous perversion
of the truth. He treated the subject in the shape of an objection started,
as if by an opponent, in his own terms against himself; for he was already
suffering a good deal of obloquy from his opinions on the question, which
he now appeared to solve for himself in no other way than by simply describing
the grace of God as nature created with a free will, occasionally combining
therewith either the help of the law, or even the remission of sins; although
these additional admissions were not plainly made, but only sparingly suggested
by him. And yet, even under these circumstances, I refrained from inserting
Pelagius' name in my work, wherein I refuted this book of his; for I still
thought that I should render a prompter assistance to the truth if I continued
to preserve a friendly relation to him, and so to spare his personal feelings,
while at the same time I showed no mercy, as I was bound not to show it,
to the productions of his pen. Hence, I must say, I now feel some annoyance,
that in this trial he somewhere said: "I anathematize those who hold these
opinions, or have at any time held them." He might have been contented
with saying, "Those why hold these opinions," which we should have regarded
in the light of a self-censure; but when be went on to say, "Or have at
any time held them," in the first place, how could he dare to condemn so
unjustly those harmless persons who no longer hold the errors, which they
had learnt either from others, or actually from himself? And, in the second
place, who among all those persons that were aware of the fact of his not
only having held the opinions in question, but of his having taught them,
could help suspecting, and not unreasonably, that he must have acted insincerely
in condemning those who now hold those opinions, seeing that he did not
hesitate to condemn in the same strain and at the same moment those also
who had at any time previously held them, when they would be sure to remember
that they had no less a person than himself as their instructor in these
errors? There are, for instance, such persons as Timasius and Jacobus,
to say nothing of any others. How can he with unblushing face look at them,
his dear friends (who have never relinquished their love of him) and his
former disciples? These are the persons to whom I addressed the work in
which I replied to the statements of his book. I think I ought not to pass
over in silence the style and tone which they observed towards me in their
correspondence, and I have here added a letter of theirs as a sample.

CHAP. 48 [XXIV.]--A LETTER WRITTEN BY TIMASIUS
AND JACOBUS TO AUGUSTIN ON RECEIVING HIS TREATISE "ON NATURE AND GRACE."

"To his lordship, the truly blessed and deservedly
venerable father, Bishop Augustin, Timasius and Jacobus send greeting in
the Lord. We have been so greatly refreshed and strengthened by the grace
of God, which your word has ministered to us, my lord, our truly blessed
and justly venerated father, that we may with the utmost sincerity and
propriety say, He sent His word and healed them." We have found, indeed,
that your holiness has so thoroughly sired the contents of his little book
as to astonish us with the answers with which even the slightest points
of his error have been confronted, whether it be on matters which every
Christian ought to rebut, loathe, and avoid, or on those in which he is
not with sufficient certainty found to have erred,--although even in these
he has, with incredible subtlety, suggested his belief that God's grace
should be kept out of sight.2 There is, however, one consideration which
affects us under so great a benefit,--that this most illustrious gift of
the grace of God has, however slowly, so fully shone out upon us, If, indeed,
it has happened that some are removed from the influence of this clearest
light of truth, whose blindness required its illumination, yet even to
them, we doubt not, the same grace will find its steady way, however late,
by the merciful favour of that God 'who will have all men to be saved and
to come unto the knowledge of the truth.' As for ourselves, indeed, thanks
to that loving spirit which is in you, we have, in consequence of your
instruction, some time since thrown off our subjection to his errors; but
we still have even now cause for continued gratitude in the fact that,
as we have been informed, the false opinions which we formerly believed
are now becoming apparent to others--a way of escape opening out to them
in the extremely precious discourse of your holiness," Then, in another
hand: "May the mercy of our God keep your blessedness in safety, and mindful
of us, for His eternal glory."

CHAP. 49 [XXV.]--PELAGIUS' BEHAVIOUR CONTRASTED
WITH THAT OF THE WRITERS OF THE LETTER.

If now that man, too, were to confess that
he had once been implicated in this error as a person possessed, but that
he now anathematized all that hold these opinions, whoever should withhold
his congratulation from him, now that he was in possession of the way of
truth, would surely surrender all the bowels of love. As the case, however,
now stands, he has not only not acknowledged his liberation from his pestilential
error; but, as if that were a small thing, he has gone on to anathematize
men who have reached that freedom, who love him so well that they would
fain desire his own emancipation. Amongst these are those very men who
have expressed their good-will towards him in the letter, which they forwarded
to me. For he it was whom they had chiefly in view when they said how much
they were affected at the fact of my having at last written that work.
"If, indeed, it has happened," they say, "that some are removed from the
influence of this clearest light of truth, whose blindness required its
illumination, yet even to them," they go on to remark, "we doubt not, the
self-same grace will find its way, by the merciful favour of God." Any
name, or names, even they, too, thought it desirable as yet to suppress,
in order that, if friendship still lived on, the error of the friends might
the more surely die.

CHAP. 50.--PELAGIUS HAS NO GOOD REASON TO
BE ANNOYED IF HIS NAME BE AT LAST USED IN THE CONTROVERSY, AND HE BE EXPRESSLY
REFUTED.

But now if Pelagius thinks of God, if he is
not ungrateful for His mercy in having brought him before this tribunal
of the bishops, that thus he might be saved from the hardihood of afterwards
defending these anathematized opinions, and be at once led to acknowledge
them as deserving of abhorrence and rejection, he will be more thankful
to us for our book, in which, by mentioning his name, we shall open the
wound in order to cure it, than for one in which we were afraid to cause
him pain, and, in fact, only produced irritation,--a result which causes
us regret. Should he, however, feel angry with us, let him reflect how
unfair such anger is; and, in order to subdue it, let him ask God to give
him that grace which, in this trial, he has confessed to be necessary for
each one of our actions, that so by His assistance he may gain a real victory.
For of what use to him are all those great laudations contained in the
letters of the bishops, which he thought fit to be mentioned, and even
to be read and quoted in his favour,--as if all those persons who heard
his strong and, to some extent, earnest exhortations to goodness of life
could not have easily discovered how perverse were the opinions which he
was entertaining?

CHAP. 51 [XXVI.]--THE NATURE OF AUGUSTIN'S
LETTER TO PELAGIUS.

For my own part, indeed, in my letter which
he produced, I not only abstained from all praises of him, but I even exhorted
him, with as much earnestness as I could, short of actually mooting the
question, to cultivate right views about the grace of God. In my salutation
I called him "lord" --a title which, in our epistolary style, we usually
apply even to some persons who are not Christians,--and this without untruth,
inasmuch as we do, in a certain sense, owe to all such persons a service,
which is yet freedom, to help them in obtaining the salvation which is
in Christ. I added the epithet "most beloved;" and as I now call him by
this term, so shall I continue to do so, even if he be angry with me; because,
if I ceased to retain my love towards him, because of his feeling the anger,
I should only injure myself rather than him. I, moreover, styled him "most
longed for,'' because I greatly longed to have a conversation with him
in person; for I had already heard that he was endeavouring publicly to
oppose grace, whereby we are justified, whenever any mention was made of
it. The brief contents of the letter itself indeed show all this; for,
after thanking him for the pleasure he gave me by the information of his
own health and that of his friends (whose bodily health we are bound of
course to wish for, however much we may desire their amendment in other
respects), I at once expressed the hope that the Lord would recompense
him with such blessings as do not appertain to physical welfare, but which
he used to think, and probably still thinks, consist solely in the freedom
of the will and his own power,--at the same time, and for this reason,
wishing him "eternal life" Then again, remembering the many good and kind
wishes he had expressed for me in his letter, which I was answering, I
went on to beg of him, too, that he would pray for me, that the Lord would
indeed make me such a man as he believed me to be already; that so I might
gently remind him, against the opinion he was himself entertaining, that
the very righteousness which he had thought worthy to be praised in me
was "not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of, God that
showeth mercy."2 This is the substance of that short letter of mine, and
such was my purpose when I dictated it. This is a copy of it:

CHAP. 52 [XXVII. AND XXVIII.]--THE TEXT OF
THE LETTER.

"To my most beloved lord, and most longed-for
brother Pelagius, Augustin sends greeting in the Lord. I thank you very
much for the pleasure you have kindly afforded me by your letter, and for
informing me of your good health. May the Lord requite you with blessings,
and may you ever enjoy them, and live With Him for evermore in all eternity,
my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother. For my own part, indeed,
although I do not admit your high encomiums of me, which the letter of
your Benignity conveys, I yet cannot be insensible of the benevolent view
you entertain towards my poor deserts; at the same time requesting you
to pray for me, that the Lord would make me such a man as you suppose me
to be already." Then, in another hand, it follows: "Be mindful of us; may
you be safe, and find favour with the Lord, my most beloved lord, and most
longed-for brother."

CHAP. 53 [XXIX.]--PELAGIUS' USE OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

As to that which I placed in the postscript,--that
he might "find favour with the Lord," --I intimated that this lay rather
in His grace than in man's sole will; for I did not make it the subject
either of exhortation, or of precept, or of instruction, but simply of
my wish. But just in the same way as I should, if I had exhorted or enjoined,
or even instructed him, simply have shown that all this appertained to
free will, without, however, derogating from the grace of God; so in like
manner, when I expressed the matter in the way of a wish, I asserted no
doubt the grace of God, but at the same time I did not quench the liberty
of the will. Wherefore, then, did he produce this letter at the trial?
If he had only from the beginning entertained views in accordance with
it, very likely he would not have been at all summoned before the bishops
by the brethren, who, with all their kindness of disposition, could yet
not help being offended with his perverse contentiousness. Now, however,
as I have given on my part an account of this letter of mine, so would
they, whose epistles he quoted, explain theirs also, if it were necessary;--they
would tell us either what they thought, or what they were ignorant of,
or with what purpose they wrote to him. Pelagius, therefore, may boast
to his heart's content of the friendship of holy men, he may read their
letters recounting his praises, he may produce whatever synodal acts he
pleases to attest his own acquittal,--there still stands against him the
fact, proved by the testimony of competent witnesses, that he has inserted
in his books statements which are opposed to that grace of God whereby
we are called and justified; and unless he shall, after true confession,
anathematize these statements, and then go on to contradict them both in
his writings and discussions, he will certainly seem to all those who have
a fuller knowledge of him to have laboured in vain in his attempt to set
himself right.

CHAP. 54 [XXX.]--ON THE LETTER OF PELAGIUS,
IN WHICH HE BOASTS THAT HIS ERRORS HAD BEEN APPROVED BY FOURTEEN BISHOPS.

For I will not be silent as to the transactions
which took place after this trial, and which rather augment the suspicion
against him. A certain epistle found its way into our hands, which was
ascribed to Pelagius himself, writing to a friend of his, a presbyter,
who had kindly admonished him (as appears from the same epistle) not to
allow any one to separate himself from the body of the Church on his account.
Among the other contents of this document, which it would be both tedious
and unnecessary to quote here, Pelagius says: "By the sentence of fourteen
bishops our statement was received with approbation, in which we affirmed
that 'a man is able to be without sin, and easily to keep the commandments
of God, if he wishes? This sentence," says he, "has filled the mouths of
the gainsayers with confusion, and has separated asunder the entire set
which was conspiring together for evil." Whether, indeed, this epistle
was really written by Pelagius, or was composed by somebody in his name,
who can fail to see, after what manner this error claims to have achieved
a victory, even in the judicial proceedings where it was refuted and condemned?
Now, he has adduced the words we have just quoted according to the form
in which they occur in his book of "Chapters," as it is called, not in
the shape in which they were objected to him at his trial, and even repeated
by him in his answer. For even his accusers, through some unaccountable
inaccuracy, left out a word in their indictment, concerning which there
is no small controversy. They made him say, that "a man is able to be without
sin, if he wishes; and, if he wishes, to keep the commandments of God."
There is nothing said here about this being "easily" done. Afterwards,
when he gave his answer, he spake thus: "We said, that a man is able to
be without sin, and to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes;" he
did not then say, "easily keep," but only "keep." So in another place,
amongst the statements about which Hilary consulted me, and I gave him
my views, it was objected to Pelagius that he had said, "A man is able,
if he wishes, to live without sin." To this he himself responded, "That
a man is able to be without sin has been said above." Now, on this occasion,
we do not find on the part either of those who brought the objection or
of him who rebutted it, that the word "easily" was used at all. Then, again,
in the narrative of the holy Bishop John, which we have partly quoted above,1
he says, "When they were importunate and exclaimed, 'He is a heretic, because
he says, It is true that a man is able, if he only will, to live without
sin;' and then, when we questioned him on this point, he answered, 'I did
not say that man's nature has received the power of being impeccable,--but
I said, whosoever is willing, in the pursuit of his own salvation, to labour
and I struggle to abstain froth sinning and to walk in the commandments
of God, receives the ability to do so from God.' Then, whilst some were
whispering, and remarking on the statement of Pelagius, that 'without God's
grace man was able to attain perfection,' I censured the statement, and
reminded them, besides, that even the Apostle Paul, after so many labours,--not,
indeed, in his own strength, but by the grace of God,--said, 'I laboured
more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God that was
with me.'" And so on, as I have already mentioned.

CHAP. 55.--PELAGIUS' LETTER DISCUSSED.What, then, is the meaning of those vaunting
words of theirs in this epistle, wherein they boast of having induced the
fourteen bishops who sat in that trial to believe not merely that a man
has ability but that he has "facility" to abstain from sinning, according
to the position laid down in the "Chapters" of this same Pelagius,--when,
in the draft of the proceedings, notwithstanding the frequent repetition
of the general charge and full consideration bestowed on it, this is nowhere
found? How, indeed, can this word fail to contradict the very defence and
answer which Pela-gius made; since the Bishop John asserted that Pelagius
put in this answer in his presence, that "he wished it to be understood
that the man who was willing to labour and agonize for his salvation was
able to avoid sin," while Pelagius himself, at this time engaged in a formal
inquiry anti conducting his defence, said, that "it was by his own labour
and the grace of God that a man is able to be without sin?" Now, is a thing
easy when labour is required to effect it? For I suppose that every man
would agree with us in the opinion, that wherever there is labour there
cannot be facility. And yet a carnal epistle of windiness and inflation
flies forth, and, outrunning in speed the tardy record of the proceedings,
gets first into men's hands; so as to assert that fourteen bishops in the
East have determined, not only "that a man is able to be without sin, and
to keep God's commandments," but "easily to keep." Nor is God's assistance
once named: it is merely said, "If he wishes;" so that, of course, as nothing
is affirmed of the divine grace, for which the earnest fight was made,
it remains that the only thing one reads of in this epistle is the unhappy
and self-deceiving--because represented as victorious--human pride. As
if the Bishop John, indeed, had not expressly declared that he censured
this statement, and that, by the help of three inspired texts of Scripture,
he had, as if by thunderbolts, struck to the ground the gigantic mountains
of such presumption which they had piled up against the still over-towering
heights of heavenly grace; or as if again those other bishops who were
John's assessors could have borne with Pelagius, either in mind or even
in ear, when he pronounced these words: "We said that a man is able to
be without sin and to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes," unless
he had gone on at once to say: "For the ability to do this God has given
to him" (for they were unaware that he was speaking of nature, and not
of that grace which they had learnt from the teaching of the apostle);
and had afterwards added this qualification: "We never said, however, that
any man could be found, who at no time whatever from his infancy to his
old age had committed sin, but that if any person were converted from his
sins, he could by his own exertion and the grace of God be without sin."
Now, by the very fact that in their sentence they used these words, "he
has answered correctly, 'that a man can, when he has the assistance and
grace of God, be without sin;'" what else did they fear than that, if he
denied this, he would be doing a manifest wrong not to man's ability, but
to God's grace? It has indeed not been defined when a man may become without
sin; it has only been judicially settled, that this result can only be
reached by the assisting grace of God; it has not, I say, been defined
whether a man, whilst he is in this flesh which lusts against the Spirit,
ever has been, or now is, or ever can be, by his present use of reason
and free will, either in the full society of man or in monastic solitude,
in such a state as to be beyond the necessity of offering up the prayer,
not in behalf of others, but for himself personally: "Forgive us our debts;"
or whether this gift shall be consummated at the time when "we shall be
like Him, when we shall see Him as He is," --when it shall be said, not
by those that are fighting: "I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind," but by those that are triumphing: "O death, where
is thy victory ? O death, where is thy sting?" Now, this is perhaps hardly
a question which ought to be discussed between catholics and heretics,
but only among catholics with a view to a peaceful settlement.

CHAP. 56 [XXXI.]--IS PELAGIUS SINCERE?

How, then, can it be believed that Pelagius
(if indeed this epistle is his) could have been sincere, when he acknowledged
the grace of God, which is not nature with its free will, nor the knowledge
of the law, nor simply the forgiveness of sins, but a something which is
necessary to each of our actions; or could have sincerely anathematized
everybody who entertained the contrary opinion:--seeing that in his epistle
he set forth even the ease wherewith a man can avoid sinning (concerning
which no question had arisen at this trial) just as if the judges had come
to an agreement to receive even this word, and said nothing about the grace
of God, by the confession and subsequent addition of which he escaped the
penalty of condemnation by the Church?

CHAP. 57 [XXXII.]--FRAUDULENT PRACTICES PURSUED
BY PELAGIUS IN HIS REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN PALESTINE, IN THE PAPER
WHEREIN HE DEFENDED HIMSELF TO AUGUSTIN.

There is yet another point which I must not
pass over in silence. In the paper containing his defence which he sent
to me by a friend of ours, one Charus, a citizen of Hippo, but a deacon
in the Eastern Church, he has made a statement which is different from
what is contained in the Proceedings of the Bishops. Now, these Proceedings,
as regards their contents, are of a higher and firmer tone, and more straightforward
in defending the catholic verity in opposition to this heretical pestilence.
For, when I read this paper of his, previous to receiving a copy of the
Proceedings, I was not aware that he had made use of those words which
he had used at the trial, when he was present for himself; they are few,
and there is not much discrepancy, and they do not occasion me much anxiety.
[XXXIII.] But I could not help feeling annoyance that he can appear to
have defended sundry sentences of Coelestius, which, from the Proceedings,
it is clear enough that he anathematized. Now, some of these he disavowed
for himself, simply remarking, that "he was not in any way responsible
for them." In his paper, however, he refused to anathematize these same
opinions, which are to this effect: "That Adam was created mortal, and
that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam's
sin injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less
than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That new-born infants are in
the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand,
the entire human race does not die owing to Adam's death and transgression;
nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the
resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have
eternal life. That rich men, even if they are baptized, unless they renounce
and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing
of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven."
Now, in his paper, the answer which he gives to all this is: "All these
statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do
I hold myself responsible for them." In the Proceedings, however, he expressed
himself as follows on these points: "They have not been made by me, as
even their testimony shows, and for them I do not feel that I am at all
responsible. But yet, for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize
those who either now hold, or have ever held, them." Now, why did he not
express himself thus in his paper also? It would not, I suppose, have cost
much ink, or writing, or delay; nor have occupied much of the paper itself,
if he had done this. Who, however, can help believing that there is a purpose
in all this, to pass off this paper in all directions as an abridgment
of the Episcopal Proceedings. In consequence of which, men might think
that his right still to maintain any of these opinions which he pleased
had not been taken away,--on the ground that they had been simply laid
to his charge but had not received his approbation, nor yet had been anathematized
and condemned by him.

CHAP. 58.--THE SAME CONTINUED.

He has, moreover, in this same paper, huddled
together afterwards many of the points which were objected against him
out of the "Chapters," of Coelestius' book; nor has he kept distinct, at
the intervals which separate them in the Proceedings, the two answers in
which he anathematized these very heads; but has substituted one general
reply for them all. This, I should have supposed, had been done for the
sake of brevity, had I not perceived that he had a very special object
in the arrangement which disturbs us. For thus has he closed this answer:
"I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony,
are not mine; nor, as I have already said, am I to be held responsible
for them. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain
are sound and correct; those, however, which I have said are not my own,
I reject according to the judgment of the holy Church, pronouncing anathema
on every man that opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the holy and catholic
Church; and likewise on those who by inventing false opinions have excited
odium against us." This last paragraph the Proceedings do not contain;
it has, however, no bearing on the matter which causes us anxiety. By all
means let them have his anathema who have excited odium against him by
their invention of false opinions. But, when first I read, "Those opinions,
however, which I have said are not my own, I reject in accordance with
the judgment of the holy Church," being ignorant that any judgment had
been arrived at on the point by the Church, since there is here nothing
said about it, and I had not then read the Proceedings, I really thought
that nothing else was meant than that he promised that he would entertain
the same view about the "Chapters" as the Church, which had not yet determined
the question, might some day decide respecting them; and that he was ready
to reject the opinions which the Church had not yet indeed rejected, but
might one day have occasion to reject; and that this, too, was the purport
of what he further said: "Pronouncing anathema on every man that opposes
and gainsays the doctrines of the holy catholic Church." But in fact, as
the Proceedings testify, a judgment of the Church had already been pronounced
on these subjects by the fourteen bishops; and it was in accordance with
this judgment that he professed to reject all these opinions, and to pronounce
his anathema against those persons who, by reason of the said opinions,
were contravening the judgment which had already, as the Proceedings show,
been actually settled. For already had the judges asked: "What says the
monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion which have been read in his
presence? For this holy synod condemns them, as does also God's holy catholic
Church." Now, they who know nothing of all this, and only read this paper
of his, are led to suppose that some one or other of these opinions may
lawfully be maintained, as if they had not been determined to be contrary
to catholic doctrine, and as if Pelagius had declared himself to be ready
to hold the same sentiments concerning them which the Church had not as
yet determined, but might have to determine. He has not, therefore, expressed
himself in this paper, to which we have so often referred, straightforwardly
enough for us to discover the fact, of which we find a voucher in the Proceedings,
that all those dogmas by means of which this heresy has been stealing along
and growing strong with contentious audacity, have been condemned by fourteen
bishops presiding in an ecclesiastical synod! Now, if he was afraid that
this fact would become known, as is the case, he has more reason for self-correction
than for resentment at the vigilance with which we are watching the controversy
to the best of our ability, however late. If, however, it is untrue that
he had any such fears, and we are only indulging in a suspicion which is
natural to man, let him forgive us; but, at the same time, let him continue
to oppose and resist the opinions which were rejected by him with anathemas
in the proceedings before the bishops, when he was on his defence; for
if he now shows any leniency to them, he would seem not only to have believed
these opinions formerly, but to be cherishing them still.

CHAP. 59 [XXXIV.]--ALTHOUGH PELAGIUS WAS ACQUITTED,
HIS HERESY WAS CONDEMNED.

Now, with respect to this treatise of mine,
which perhaps is not unreasonably lengthy, considering the importance and
extent of its subject, I have wished to inscribe it to your Reverence,
in order that, if it be not displeasing to your mind, it may become known
to such persons as I have thought may stand in need of it under the recommendation
of your authority, which carries so much more weight than our own poor
industry. Thus it may avail to crush the vain and contentious thoughts
of those persons who suppose that, because Pelagius was acquited, those
Eastern bishops who pronounced the judgment approved of those dogmas which
are beginning to shed very pernicious influences against the Christian
faith, and that grace of God whereby we are called and justified. These
the Christian verity never ceases to condemn, as indeed it condemned them
even by the authoritative sentence of the fourteen bishops; nor would it,
on the occasion in question, have hesitated to condemn Pelagius too, unless
he had anathematized the heretical opinions with which be was charged.
But now, while we render to this man the respect of brotherly affection
(and we have all along expressed with all sincerity our anxiety for him
and interest in him), let us observe, with as much brevity as is consistent
with accuracy of observation, that, notwithstanding the undoubted fact
of his having been acquitted by a human verdict, the heresy itself has
ever been held worthy of condemnation by divine judgment, and has actually
been condemned by the sentence of these fourteen bishops of the Eastern
Church.

CHAP. 60 [XXXV.]--THE SYNOD'S CONDEMNATION
OF HIS DOCTRINES.

This is the concluding clause of their judgment.
The synod said: "Now forasmuch as we have received satisfaction in these
inquiries from the monk Pelagius, who has been present, who yields assent
to godly doctrines, and rejects and anathematizes those which are contrary
to the Church, we confess him still to belong to the communion of the catholic
Church." Now, there are two facts concerning the monk Pelagius here contained
with entire perspicuity in this brief statement of the holy bishops who
judged him: one, that "he yields assent to godly doctrines;" the other,
that "he rejects and anathematizes those which are contrary to the Church."
On account of these two concessions, Pelagius was pronounced to be "in
the communion of the catholic Church." Let us, in pursuit of our inquiry,
briefly recapitulate the entire facts, in order to discover what were the
words he used which made those two points so clear, as far as men were
able at the moment to form a judgment as to what were manifest points.
For among the allegations which were made against him, he is said to have
rejected and anathematized, as "contrary," all the statements which in
his answer he denied were his. Let us, then, summarize the whole case as
far as we can.

CHAP. 61.--HISTORY OF THE PELAGIAN HERESY,
THE PELAGIAN HERESY WAS RAISED BY SUNDRY PERSONS WHO AFFECTED THE MONASTIC
STATE.

Since it was necessary that the Apostle Paul's
prediction should be accomplished,--" There must be also heresies among
you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you," --after
the older heresies, there has been just now introduced, not by bishops
or presbyters or any rank of the clergy, but by certain would--be monks,
a heresy which disputes, under colour of defending free will, against the
grace of God which we have through our Lord Jesus Christ; and endeavours
to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith of which it is written,
"By one man, death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead; for as
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" and denies
God's help in our actions, by affirming that, "in order to avoid sin and
to fulfil righteousness, human nature can be sufficient, seeing that it
has been created with free will; and that God's grace lies in the fact
that we have been so created as to be able to do this by the will, and
in the further fact that God has given to us the assistance of His law
and commandments, and also in that He forgives their past sins when men
turn to Him;" that "in these things alone is God's grace to be regarded
as consisting, not in the help He gives to us for each of our actions,"--"seeing
that a man can be without sin, and keep God's commandments easily if he
wishes."

CHAP. 62.--THE HISTORY CONTINUED. COELESTIUS
CONDEMNED AT CARTHAGE BY EPISCOPAL JUDGMENT. PELAGIUS ACQUITTED BY BISHOPS
IN PALESTINE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF HIS DECEPTIVE ANSWERS; BUT YET HIS HERESY
WAS CONDEMNED BY THEM.

After this heresy had deceived a great many
persons, and was disturbing the brethren whom it had failed to deceive,
one Coelestius, who entertained these sentiments, was brought up for trial
before the Church of Carthage, and was condemned by a sentence of the bishops.
Then, a few years afterwards, Pelagius, who was said to have been this
man's instructor, having been accused of holding his heresy, found also
his way before an episcopal tribunal. The indictment was prepared against
him by the Gallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who were, however, not
present at the proceedings, and were excused from attendance owing to the
illness of one of them. After all the charges were duly recited, and Pelagius
had met them by his answers, the fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine
pronounced him, in accordance with his answers, free from the perversity
of this heresy; while yet without hesitation condemning the heresy itself.
They approved indeed of his answer to the objections, that "a man is assisted
by a knowledge of the law, towards not sinning; even as it is written,
'He hath given them a law for a help;'" but yet they disapproved of this
knowledge of the law being that grace of God concerning which the Scripture
says: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God
through Jesus Christ our Lord." Nor did Pelagius say absolutely: "All men
are ruled by their own will," as if God did not rule them; for he said,
when questioned on this point: "This I stated in the interest of the freedom
of our will; God is its helper, whenever it makes choice of good. Man,
however, when sinning, is himself in fault, as being under the direction
of his free will." They approved, moreover, of his statement, that "in
the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and sinners,
but they will be punished in everlasting fires;" because in his defence
he said, "that he had made such an assertion in accordance with the gospel,
in which it is written concerning sinners, 'These shall go away into eternal
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.'" But he did not say,
all sinners are reserved for eternal punishment, for then he would evidently
have run counter to the apostle, who distinctly states that some of them
will be saved, "yet so as by fire." When also Pelagius said that "the kingdom
of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament," they approved of the
statement, on the ground that he supported himself by the testimony of
the prophet Daniel, who thus wrote: "The saints shall take the kingdom
of the Most High." They understood him, in this statement of his, to mean
by the term "Old Testament," not simply the Testament which was made on
Mount Sinai, but the entire body of the canonical Scriptures which had
been given previous to the coming of the Lord. His allegation, however,
that "a man is able to be without sin, if he wishes," was not approved
by the bishops in the sense which he had evidently meant it to bear in
his book --as if this was solely in a man's power by free will (for it
was contended that he must have meant no less than this by his saying:
"if he wishes"),--but only in the sense which he actually gave to the passage
on the present occasion in his answer; in the very sense, indeed, in which
the episcopal judges mentioned the subject in their own interlocution with
especial brevity and clearness, that a man is able to be without sin with
the help and grace of God. But still it was left undetermined when the
saints were to attain to this state of perfection,--whether in the body
of this death, or when death shall be swallowed up in victory.

CHAP. 63.--THE SAME CONTINUED. THE DOGMAS
OF COELESTIUS LAID TO THE CHARGE OF PELAGIUS, AS HIS MASTER, AND CONDEMNED.

Of the opinions which Coelestius has said
or written, and which were objected against Pelagius, on the ground that
they were the dogmas of his disciple, he acknowledged some as entertained
also by himself; but, in his vindication, he said that he held them in
a different sense from that which was alleged in the indictment. One of
these opinions was thus stated: "Before the advent of Christ some men lived
holy and righteous lives." Coelestius, however, was stated to have said
that "they lived sinless lives. Again, it was objected that Coelestius
declared "the Church to be without spot and wrinkle." Pelagius, however,
said in his reply, "that he had made such an assertion, but as meaning
that the Church is by the layer cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and
that in this purity the Lord would have her continue." Respecting that
statement of Coelestius: "That we do more than is commanded us in the law
and the gospel," Pelagius urged in his own vindication, that "he spoke
concerning virginity," of which Paul says: "I have no commandment of the
Lord." Another objection alleged that Coelestius had maintained that "every
individual has the ability to possess all powers and graces," thus annulling
that "diversity of gifts" which, the apostle sets forth. Pelagius, however,
answered, that "he did not annul the diversity of gifts, but declared that
God gives to the man who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all
graces, even as He gave the Apostle Paul."

CHAP. 64. -- HOW THE BISHOPS CLEARED PELAGIUS
OF THOSE CHARGES.

These four dogmas, thus connected with the
name of Coelestius, were therefore not approved by the bishops in their
judgment, in the sense in which Coelestius was said to have set them forth
but in the sense which Pelagius gave to them in his reply. For they saw
clearly enough, that it is one thing to be without sin, and another thing
to live holily and righteously, as Scripture testifies that some lived
even before the coming of Christ. And that although the Church here on
earth is not without spot or wrinkle, she is yet both cleansed from every
spot and wrinkle by the layer of regeneration, and in this state the Lord
would have her continue. And continue she certainly will, for without doubt
she shall reign without spot or wrinkle in an everlasting felicity. And
that the perpetual virginity, which is not commanded, is unquestionably
more than the purity of wedded life, which is commanded--although virginity
is persevered in by many persons, who, notwithstanding, are not without
sin. And that all those graces which he enumerates in a certain passage
were possessed by the Apostle Paul; and yet, for all that, either they
could quite understand, in regard to his having been worthy to receive
them, that the merit was not according to his works, but rather, in some
way, according to predestination (for the apostle says himself: "I am not
meet to be called an apostle;") or else their attention was not arrested
by the sense which Pelagius gave to the word, as he himself viewed it.
Such are the points on which the bishops pronounced the agreement of Pelagius
with the doctrines of godly truth.

CHAP. 65. -- RECAPITULATION OF WHAT PELAGIUS
CONDEMNED.

Let us now, by a like recapitulation, bestow
a little more attention on those subjects which the bishops said he rejected
and condemned as "contrary;" for herein especially lies the whole of that
heresy. We will entirely pass over the strange terms of adulation which
he is reported to have put into writing in praise of a certain widow; these
he denied having ever inserted in any of his writings, or ever given utterance
to, and he anathematized all who held the opinions in question not indeed
as heretics, but as fools. The following are the wild thickets of this
heresy, which we are sorry to see shooting out buds, nay growing into trees,
day by day:--"That Adam was made mortal, and would have died whether he
had sinned or not; that Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human
race; that the law no less than the gospel leads to the kingdom; that new-born
infants are in the same condition that Adam was before the transgression;
that the whole human race does not, on the one hand, die in consequence
of Adam's death and transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole
human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ; that infants,
even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life; that rich men, even if
baptized, unless they renounce and surrender everything, have, whatever
good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them, neither
can they possess the kingdom of God; that God's grace and assistance are
not given for single actions, but reside in free will, and in the law and
teaching; that the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits, so
that grace really lies in the will of man, as he makes himself worthy or
unworthy of it; that men cannot be called children of God, unless they
have become entirely free from sin; that forgetfulness and ignorance do
not come under sin, as they do not happen through the will, but of necessity;
that there is no free will, if it needs the help of God, inasmuch as every
one has his proper will either to do something, or to abstain from doing
it; that our victory comes not from God's help, but from free will; that
from what Peter says, that 'we are partakers of the divine nature,' it
must follow that the soul has the power of being without sin, just in the
way that God Himself has." For this have I read in the eleventh chapter
of the book, which bears no title of its author, but is commonly reported
to be the work of Coelestius,--expressed in these words: "Now how can anybody,"
asks the author, "become a partaker of the thing from the condition and
power of which he is distinctly declared to be a stranger?" Accordingly,
the brethren who prepared these objections understood him to have said
that man's soul and God are of the same nature, and to have asserted that
the soul is part of God; for thus they understood that he meant that the
soul partakes of the same condition and power as God. Moreover in the last
of the objections laid to his charge there occurs this position: "That
pardon is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God,
but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance
they have been worthy of mercy." Now all these dogmas, and the arguments
which were advanced in support of them, were repudiated and anathematized
by Pelagius, and his conduct herein was approved of by the judges, who
accordingly pronounced that he had, by his rejection and anathema, condemned
the opinions in question as contrary to, the faith. Let us therefore rejoice--whatever
may be the circumstances of the case, whether Coelestius laid down these
theses or not, or whether Pelagius believed them or not--that the injurious
principles of this new heresy were condemned before that ecclesiastical
tribunal; and let us thank God for such a result, and proclaim His praises.

CHAP. 66.--THE HARSH MEASURES OF THE PELAGIANS
AGAINST THE HOLY MONKS AND NUNS WHO BELONGED TO JEROME'S CHARGE.

Certain followers of Pelagius are said to
have carried their support of his cause after these judicial proceedings
to an incredible extent of perverseness and audacity. They are said to
have most cruelly beaten and maltreated the servants and handmaidens of
the Lord who lived under the care of the holy presbyter Jerome, slain his
deacon, and burnt his monastic houses; whilst he himself, by God's mercy,
narrowly escaped the violent attacks of these impious assailants in the
shelter of a well-defended fortress. However, I think it better becomes
me to say nothing of these matters, but to wait and see what measures our
brethren the bishops may deem it their duty to adopt concerning such scandalous
enormities; for nobody can suppose that it is possible for them to pass
them over without notice. Impious doctrines put forth by persons of this
character it is no doubt the duty of all catholics, however remote their
residence, to oppose and refute, and so to hinder all injury from such
opinions wheresoever they may happen to find their way; but impious actions
it belongs to the discipline of the episcopal authority on the spot to
control, and they must be left for punishment to the bishops of the very
place or immediate neighbourhood, to be dealt with as pastoral diligence
and godly severity may suggest. We, therefore, who live at so great a distance,
are bound to hope that such a stop may there be put to proceedings of this
kind, that there may be no necessity elsewhere of further invoking judicial
remedies. But what rather befits our personal activity is so to set forth
the truth, that the minds of all those who have been severely wounded by
the report, so widely spread everywhere, may be healed by the mercy of
God following our efforts. With this desire, I must now at last terminate
this work, which, should it succeed, as I hope, in commending itself to
your mind, will, I trust, with the Lord's blessing, become serviceable
to its readers--recommended to them rather by your name than by my own,
and through your care and diligence receiving a wider circulation.